...
By Amanda Castro
Associate News Editor
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
A federal judge has given the Trump administration one week to submit a sworn declaration formally killing the $1.776 billion Anti‑Weaponization Fund.
The administration has not rescinded the May 18 order creating the fund, leaving open the possibility it could be revived. Plaintiffs who sued to block the program say they remain at risk unless the government commits, under oath, to permanently closing the fund and not reactivating it.
Judge Leonie Brinkema said the record lacks “uncontestable evidence” that the administration has abandoned the plan, noting that President Donald Trump has continued to voice support for the concept. Her ruling keeps the fund frozen indefinitely while the Justice Department decides whether acting Attorney General Todd Blanche or another senior official will sign a declaration stating the program is defunct.
Read More on U.S.
What Anti‑Weaponization Fund Is
The Anti‑Weaponization Fund was created through a settlement resolving Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS, directing $1.776 billion into a designated account to compensate people who claim they were unfairly targeted by prior administrations.
Blanche formalized the fund in a May 18 order, outlining how the money could be used and establishing a framework for a five‑member commission that was never formed. Plaintiffs argue the structure effectively functions as a discretionary payout system for Trump allies and violates Congress’ control over federal spending.
...
What Judge Ordered
Brinkema, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, extended her injunction after Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney Andrew Block acknowledged he could not explain why Blanche had not rescinded his May 18 order. She said the absence of a written reversal, combined with Trump’s public comments, leaves the administration with a “motive” to revive the program.
The judge told the parties to negotiate terms for a sworn declaration within a week. If DOJ submits one, she said she may consider the case moot.
Why Fund Remains Controversial
The Anti‑Weaponization Fund was created as part of a settlement resolving Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax returns. Blanche’s order directed the Treasury to transfer $1.776 billion into a designated account to compensate people who claim they were targeted by prior administrations.
Plaintiffs, including a fired federal prosecutor, a college professor acquitted of assaulting federal agents, the city of New Haven, Common Cause, and the National Abortion Federation, argue the fund is unconstitutional and would function as a slush fund for Trump allies. They say they would be excluded from applying for compensation and could face renewed threats if individuals previously prosecuted for violence were paid.
Former DOJ Official Raises New Concerns
Amy Powell, former DOJ senior trial counsel and current litigation director at Lawyers for Good Government, told Newsweek the ruling highlights unresolved gaps in the administration’s position.
“Judge Brinkema’s ruling highlights the exact question that has lingered from the start of this Trump administration charade: If the fund is truly rescinded, where is the sworn declaration saying so? The court appears unwilling to treat political statements and media reports as a substitute for a formal record.”
Powell added that the litigation leaves a separate issue untouched: “But the lawsuit and this ruling also leave untouched the broad waiver of liability for the Trump family that was announced alongside the settlement. There are continuing questions about what portions of the arrangement remain in effect and would be enforceable in the future.”
Her comments reflect broader concerns among legal experts about what elements of the settlement remain operative, even as the administration signals retreat.
Conflicting Signals From Courts
In a parallel case in Washington, D.C., Judge Richard Leon declined to block the fund, saying he accepts the DOJ’s representation that it is “moot.” But he warned the administration not to “play possum,” signaling he could revisit the issue if officials change course.
Brinkema, by contrast, said the government’s assurances are insufficient without sworn testimony. She emphasized that the administration has not rescinded the underlying settlement agreement or Blanche’s order, and that Trump’s own comments suggest continued interest in the idea.
What Happens Next
If DOJ submits a sworn declaration stating the fund is permanently dead, Brinkema may dismiss the case. If it does not, her injunction remains in place and litigation over the fund’s legality will continue.
Either outcome leaves the administration under heightened scrutiny as courts weigh whether the program violated Congress’ power of the purse and whether plaintiffs face ongoing harm.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines