Judge Questions Trump Admin’s Claim That $1.8 Billion ‘Anti-Weaponization Fund’ Is Dead/ TezzBuzz/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ A federal judge expressed skepticism about the government’s claim that plans for a $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization fund” have been permanently abandoned. The Justice Department asked for the lawsuit challenging the fund to be dismissed, but Judge Leonie Brinkema did not immediately rule on that request. The fund remains blocked as plaintiffs argue the administration could revive it or create a similar program if the court lifts its order.
Quick Look
- Judge Leonie Brinkema questioned whether the lawsuit is legally moot.
- The Justice Department says the proposed fund is dead and will not be revived.
- Attorney General Todd Blanche formally terminated the fund on Aug. 2.
- President Donald Trump continued publicly supporting the concept.
- Brinkema has blocked implementation and payments since June.
- Democracy Forward argues the administration could revive the program.
- The fund originated from a settlement of Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS.
- The proposal drew bipartisan criticism over potential payments to political allies.
- Brinkema did not issue a final decision during Friday’s hearing.
Deep Look
Judge questions whether the controversy is over
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A federal judge declined to accept the Trump administration’s assurances that its controversial $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization fund” is permanently dead, although she did not immediately rule on the government’s request to dismiss the lawsuit challenging it.
U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema questioned whether the case had become legally moot simply because administration officials said the proposed fund had been terminated.
“The issues that underlie this case are still alive and kicking, in my view,” Brinkema said.
The judge’s comments indicated that she remains concerned about whether the administration could revive the fund or create a similar payment program if she ends the court order blocking it.
Brinkema has kept the fund’s implementation and any potential payouts blocked while the litigation continues.
Justice Department argues the case is moot
Justice Department attorney Andrew Block told Brinkema that Attorney General Todd Blanche formally terminated the proposed fund and that the litigation therefore has no remaining controversy for the court to resolve.
“The case is moot,” Block said. “The mootness has been addressed at every stage.”
Blanche issued a written order on Aug. 2 ending the proposal following weeks of negotiations with two Republican senators. The senators wanted a formal commitment that the fund would not move forward before supporting Blanche’s nomination for attorney general.
The proposal had generated bipartisan criticism and threatened to complicate Blanche’s confirmation.
Government attorneys maintain that no operational fund was established and that no money will be distributed through it.
Conflicting statements concern the judge
Brinkema noted that Blanche’s assurances were undermined by statements from Trump and other administration officials.
The president continued to express public support for the fund even as Blanche maintained that the proposal had been abandoned.
“They contradict themselves all the time,” Brinkema said.
The conflicting statements are central to the court’s consideration of whether voluntary termination guarantees that the disputed conduct will not recur.
Brinkema did not rule from the bench, leaving both the dismissal request and her existing order under consideration.
Fund originated from Trump’s IRS lawsuit
The administration developed the proposed fund as part of a settlement intended to resolve Trump’s lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the unauthorized disclosure of his tax returns.
The proposal called for as much as $1.8 billion to compensate people who claimed they had been improperly targeted by politically motivated government investigations or prosecutions.
Critics described the initiative as a mechanism for directing taxpayer money to Trump’s political allies. Particular concern centered on whether people convicted of attacking police officers during the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol could qualify for payments.
Brinkema initially blocked the proposed fund before extending the prohibition indefinitely in June.
Democracy Forward warns fund could return
The legal advocacy organization Democracy Forward filed the Virginia lawsuit in May. Its attorneys asked the court to prevent the administration from establishing the fund or distributing money through it.
Democracy Forward attorney Pooja Boisture argued Friday that ending Brinkema’s order could allow the administration to proceed “either in its current iteration or a new one.”
The plaintiffs contend that the executive branch cannot divert federal money into a settlement program intended to benefit the president’s political supporters.
Their lawsuit seeks a longer-lasting legal determination about the administration’s authority, rather than relying exclusively on Blanche’s termination order.
Plaintiffs include organizations, city and individuals
The plaintiffs include a former prosecutor who was fired from government service and a college professor who was acquitted of assaulting federal officers during a protest.
Other plaintiffs include:
Their attorneys characterized the proposal as an abuse of the government’s settlement authority.
“This scheme is an unprecedented, unlawful, and corrupt attempt to manipulate the legal process and laws intended to prevent political interference to achieve benefits that President Trump and his political allies could not have obtained lawfully,” the plaintiffs’ attorneys wrote in a court filing.
Justice Department says fund never existed
Justice Department lawyers dispute the plaintiffs’ allegations and argue that they lack a legal basis to challenge a program that was never established.
They described the proposed fund as something that “has never existed and will not exist.”
Government attorneys have asked Brinkema to dismiss the lawsuit rather than leave it pending over a policy they say has been formally abandoned.
“The time has come to stop this inquisition,” they wrote in their dismissal filing.
Existing block remains in place
Brinkema, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton, first intervened in the case by temporarily preventing the administration from creating the fund or distributing payments.
In June, she extended that prohibition until further notice from the court. No funds have been distributed under the disputed proposal.
Friday’s hearing did not produce a final decision about whether the litigation will continue. Until Brinkema rules otherwise, the existing order blocking the fund remains effective.
More on US News