A federal court fight over a $1.8 billion government program has reached an unusual standoff: the Trump administration insists the fund in question is no longer moving forward, but it is refusing to say so under oath in writing — and that refusal is now the central legal question in two separate federal lawsuits.
The program at the center of the dispute is the so-called “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” a Department of Justice initiative announced in May 2026 that would have set aside nearly $1.8 billion to compensate people who claim to have been victims of politically motivated prosecution by the federal government. On June 19, 2026, the DOJ formally declined a federal judge’s request to submit a sworn declaration confirming the fund’s cancellation — a decision that has reignited a legal and political controversy many assumed had already been resolved.
What Is the Anti-Weaponization Fund?
The Anti-Weaponization Fund originated from a settlement of President Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service, which Trump filed over the leak of his tax records by an IRS contractor. As part of that settlement, the Department of Justice announced in May 2026 that it would establish a fund to create what Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche described as a “lawful process for victims of lawfare and weaponization” to “seek redress.”
According to the Justice Department’s own public announcement, the fund would receive $1.776 billion, with the money sourced from the federal judgment fund — a standing appropriation that allows the DOJ to settle and pay legal claims. The fund’s administrators would have been required to submit quarterly reports to the Attorney General detailing who received compensation and what form that compensation took, with the fund subject to audit at the Attorney General’s discretion. Under the original plan, the fund would have stopped processing claims no later than December 1, 2028.
The Justice Department pointed to a legal precedent for this kind of program, citing the “Keepseagle” case, in which the Obama administration created a $760 million fund to address claims of discrimination against Native American farmers and ranchers by the federal government over several decades.
Why the Fund Became Controversial
The proposal drew immediate and intense criticism — notably from members of both political parties. Critics expressed concern that the fund, intended to compensate victims of alleged prosecutorial overreach during prior administrations, could end up directing taxpayer money toward individuals connected to the January 6, 2021 attack on the US Capitol, including people who had pleaded guilty to crimes associated with that day. Opponents characterized the proposal as a potential “slush fund” that could benefit allies of the president rather than serving any genuinely neutral compensation purpose.
The scale of opposition was significant enough that Republicans on Capitol Hill pushed back against the administration, reportedly playing a meaningful role in forcing a retreat from the proposal. On June 2, 2026, in testimony before a congressional panel, Blanche stated unequivocally: “We’re not moving forward with the fund — period.”
That public statement, however, did not end the legal disputes already underway.
The Two Lawsuits Challenging the Fund
By the time Blanche made his June 2 statement to Congress, the fund was already the subject of legal action in two separate federal courts.
The Washington, D.C. Case
A government watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, filed suit in the District of Columbia seeking a temporary restraining order to block the fund’s creation. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon ultimately declined to grant that request, finding that the case appeared to be moot given the DOJ’s repeated public statements that the fund would not move forward.
However, Leon’s ruling came with a pointed warning to the administration. “Don’t play possum with this court,” he told government attorneys — a clear signal that while he was not blocking the fund at that stage, he expected the administration’s representations to the court to be genuine and would not tolerate any attempt to revive the program quietly after the case was dismissed.
The Virginia Case
The more consequential legal battle has unfolded in the Eastern District of Virginia, where a coalition of plaintiffs brought a case specifically seeking to permanently block the fund. U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema has taken a considerably more skeptical posture toward the administration’s verbal assurances than Judge Leon did in Washington.
Brinkema originally imposed a temporary block on the fund on May 29, 2026. On June 11–12, 2026, following a hearing, she extended that block indefinitely through a preliminary injunction — a significant escalation from a temporary order to a more durable judicial action.
Central to Brinkema’s reasoning was her skepticism about whether the fund was, in practical terms, actually dead. She pointed specifically to comments President Trump made publicly even after Blanche’s congressional testimony declaring the fund was not moving forward. In a pretaped interview aired June 7, 2026, Trump stated: “I think the weaponization fund is a great idea, and so do many other Republicans. You have to get it approved.” In separate remarks, Trump expressed sympathy for the idea of compensating individuals connected to January 6, saying, “If it was up to me, I’d pay them the kind of money that they deserve. People have been destroyed.”
Brinkema characterized these statements as carrying significant weight, describing them as “a pretty good indicator that there will be some incentive or motive” to revive the fund despite Blanche’s congressional assurances. She also noted that public interest in preventing the fund’s establishment was “very strong,” and questioned the underlying premise of directing nearly $1.8 billion toward such a narrow subset of individuals when a substantial portion of the American public would likely object to that allocation.
The Court’s Demand: Put It in Writing
Having extended her injunction, Brinkema gave the administration one week — with a deadline of Friday, June 19, 2026 — to submit written, sworn declarations from both Blanche and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. The declarations were required to state specifically that the administration would “not take any action to create or operate the Anti-Weaponization Fund” and that it “will not proceed in any manner, or under any name.”
The stakes attached to this deadline were clearly defined. Brinkema indicated that if the administration submitted the sworn declarations, she would likely dismiss the underlying lawsuit as moot — effectively closing the case on the basis that there was no longer any live dispute to resolve. If the administration declined to submit the declarations, she signaled that the litigation would continue, with her injunction remaining in place.
This was, in legal terms, a relatively low-stakes request from the administration’s perspective — at least on its face. The DOJ had already stated, repeatedly and in multiple forums, that the fund was not moving forward. Submitting a sworn declaration restating that same position should, in theory, have cost the administration nothing if its public statements were accurate and its intentions genuine.
The DOJ’s Refusal: What It Actually Said
On Friday, June 19, 2026, the Department of Justice declined to submit the requested declarations. In its filing to the court, the DOJ characterized the request itself as improper, writing that “such declarations are unnecessary and the compelled testimony of senior officials from the Executive Branch implicates serious separation of powers concerns.”
Rather than providing the new sworn statements, the DOJ pointed to its existing record of representations. DOJ attorney Andrew Block wrote in the filing: “The Acting Attorney General has testified before Congress that the Fund is ‘not going forward, period’… Undersigned counsel have twice signed briefs reaffirming that ‘the Fund is not going forward,’ and counsel for Defendants has twice said substantially the same thing in open court.”
The department’s position is essentially that its accumulated public record — congressional testimony, court filings, and statements made in open court — should be treated as legally sufficient, without the need for an additional, more formal sworn declaration specifically created in response to the court’s request.
The “Serious Penalties” Argument — And Why It’s Misleading
A key part of the DOJ’s argument is that its existing statements were made “under the backdrop of serious penalties for falsity,” and that there is therefore “no reason why declarations should affect the Court’s mootness analysis.”
This framing, however, does not hold up cleanly under scrutiny. There are two categories of “serious penalties” potentially applicable to the statements the DOJ is relying on, and neither functions the way the department’s framing implies.
The first is a federal criminal statute that punishes false statements made to Congress. The significant limitation here is that this statute can only be enforced by the Department of Justice itself — meaning the DOJ is, in effect, citing its own enforcement discretion over its own potential false statements as a guarantee of their accuracy. This is a structurally different form of accountability than a sworn declaration filed directly with a federal court, which exposes the signatory to contempt proceedings and perjury liability enforced by the judiciary rather than by the executive branch evaluating itself.
The second category involves rules governing attorney conduct in federal courts. These professional conduct rules do not extend to criminal contempt and generally contemplate little beyond monetary sanctions for violations — a meaningfully lower-stakes consequence than the penalty of perjury that would have attached to the sworn declarations Brinkema specifically requested from Blanche and Bessent personally.
In short, the DOJ’s argument conflates several different accountability mechanisms with significantly different levels of seriousness and significantly different enforcement pathways, while implying they are functionally equivalent to the sworn declaration the court actually asked for.
Why the Refusal Matters: Political and Legal Stakes
The DOJ’s decision not to submit the declarations carries consequences on at least two fronts.
Legal Consequences
Brinkema had been explicit about the test she intended to apply. Without the sworn declarations, the path she outlined suggests the litigation in Virginia will continue rather than being dismissed as moot. Her existing injunction blocking the fund will likely remain in force, and the underlying legal questions about the fund’s legality — questions that have never been substantively litigated because the case has so far turned on questions of mootness rather than merits — could now move forward toward a fuller resolution.
Political Consequences
The timing of the DOJ’s refusal carries particular political weight because Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s nomination for permanent confirmation to lead the Department of Justice remains pending before the Senate. A decision that appears to undercut the credibility of his own congressional testimony — by declining to formalize under oath the same assurance he gave to lawmakers — creates an obvious opening for senators considering his confirmation to question why a sworn declaration restating his own public position would be objectionable if that position is genuine.
The episode also feeds into a broader pattern that both presiding judges in these cases have separately flagged: a gap between the administration’s formal legal representations and the public statements made by the president himself. Judge Leon’s “don’t play possum” warning and Judge Brinkema’s explicit citation of Trump’s continued public advocacy for the fund both reflect judicial skepticism about whether the administration’s litigation posture matches its actual policy intentions.
What Happens Next
With the June 19 deadline passed and no declarations submitted, the most immediate consequence is that Brinkema’s case in Virginia is expected to continue rather than being dismissed. The preliminary injunction blocking the fund remains in effect, meaning the Anti-Weaponization Fund cannot be implemented while the litigation proceeds.
The broader question — whether the fund is genuinely abandoned or merely paused pending more favorable legal or political conditions — remains unresolved by the available public record. The administration’s public statements (that the fund is not moving forward) and the president’s separate public statements (expressing continued support for the underlying concept) point in different directions, and the DOJ’s refusal to resolve that tension with a sworn court filing leaves the ambiguity firmly in place.
For the plaintiffs in both the Virginia and Washington, D.C. cases, the DOJ’s refusal will likely be read as confirmation that their skepticism was warranted. For the administration, the filing represents a deliberate choice to preserve maximum flexibility — avoiding a sworn commitment that could later constrain its options — even at the cost of prolonging litigation and absorbing political criticism during a sensitive confirmation period for the nation’s top law enforcement official.
Key Facts: The $1.8 Billion Fund Dispute at a Glance
| Detail | Information |
|---|---|
| Fund Name | Anti-Weaponization Fund |
| Proposed Amount | $1.776–$1.8 billion |
| Funding Source | Federal judgment fund |
| Origin | Settlement of Trump’s $10 billion IRS lawsuit |
| Announced | May 2026 |
| Public Retreat Announced | June 2, 2026 (Blanche congressional testimony) |
| D.C. Case Judge | U.S. District Judge Richard Leon |
| D.C. Case Outcome | TRO denied; case deemed moot, with warning to DOJ |
| Virginia Case Judge | U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema |
| Virginia Injunction Date | June 11–12, 2026 (indefinite) |
| Declaration Deadline | June 19, 2026 |
| DOJ’s Response | Declined to submit sworn declarations |
| Required Signatories | Acting AG Todd Blanche, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent |
| Status of Litigation | Ongoing; injunction remains in place |
| Related Political Context | Blanche’s permanent AG nomination pending in Senate |
