Judge extends block on $1.8B Trump ‘Anti-Weaponization Fund
U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema extended a court order on Friday blocking the Trump administration’s $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund.” Despite claims from acting Attorney General Todd Blanche that the fund is being scrapped, Brinkema ruled the block remains until the administration provides a sworn declaration that the fund will not be revived.
Why did the judge block the Anti-Weaponization Fund?
Plaintiffs, including the legal advocacy group Democracy Forward, argue the government cannot legally divert taxpayer money into what they describe as a “slush fund” for compensating allies of President Donald Trump. Judge Brinkema rejected the government’s claim that the lawsuits are now moot, stating, “The (government’s) mootness argument, in my view, doesn’t go anywhere.”
The plaintiffs include a college professor acquitted of assaulting federal agents, a fired prosecutor, the city of New Haven, Connecticut, the government watchdog Common Cause, and the National Abortion Federation. Attorney Pooja Boisture told the court that reviving the fund would cause irreparable harm to these plaintiffs.
What is the purpose of the $1.8 billion fund?
The Trump administration established the fund to resolve a lawsuit filed by the president against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns. The fund was intended to compensate people who claim to be victims of a “weaponized government.”
Controversy surrounded the fund’s potential reach. In May, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche would not rule out the possibility that individuals who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, could be eligible for payments. This occurred after President Trump issued mass pardons to more than 1,500 people charged in the Jan. 6 attack during his first day back in office last year.
How do the Virginia and D.C. court rulings differ?
The legal challenges have produced conflicting results in different jurisdictions. On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon in Washington, D.C., rejected a request to block the fund, stating he accepts Blanche’s representation that the matter is moot.
Judge Brinkema, however, highlighted a “huge gap in the record” because the government has not provided a concrete answer as to why the May 18 order establishing the fund has not been formally rescinded. Justice Department attorney Andrew Block told Brinkema he could not provide a concrete answer because he lacks direct access to Blanche.
What happens next for the administration?
The parties have one week to negotiate an agreement. A possible next step is for Trump administration officials, including Todd Blanche, to submit a sworn declaration to the court confirming the administration will not revive the fund.
The block will remain in place until further notice from the court. This follows a May 29 order that was scheduled to expire on Friday. Meanwhile, President Trump has continued to express support for the fund in remarks to reporters and has not unequivocally endorsed its cancellation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who is suing to block the Anti-Weaponization Fund?
The plaintiffs include the legal group Democracy Forward, the watchdog Common Cause, the city of New Haven, Connecticut, the National Abortion Federation, a fired prosecutor, and a college professor.
Why does the government claim the lawsuits are moot?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told Congress that the government is scrapping the fund due to bipartisan backlash.
How much money was allocated for the fund?
The settlement fund was valued at $1.8 billion.
Do you believe a sworn declaration is a necessary step to ensure government funds are not misused?