When the president says he wants something, that's a pretty good indicator there will be an incentive and motive to make it happen.
In Alexandria, Virginia, a federal judge has placed an indefinite hold on a $1.8 billion government fund that would have compensated participants in the January 6 Capitol riot and other Trump allies, refusing to accept unsworn assurances from the Justice Department that the program is truly dormant. Judge Leonie Brinkema's skepticism reflects a deeper tension in democratic governance: the question of whether a court can trust an administration's word when the president himself has publicly expressed his desire to see the program succeed. The ruling asks something ancient of power — not merely its promises, but its sworn accountability.
- A federal judge refused to take the Justice Department at its word, demanding sworn declarations from top officials before she will consider closing a case over a $1.8 billion fund critics call unconstitutional.
- The fund, designed to compensate January 6 defendants and Trump allies with taxpayer money, drew immediate legal challenges from former prosecutors, nonprofits, and even a bipartisan pair of U.S. senators who called it a threat to the constitutional order.
- Judge Brinkema pointed to Trump's own public statements supporting the fund as evidence the administration could revive it at any moment, creating a live legal controversy the government could not simply talk its way out of.
- The Justice Department's courtroom lawyer admitted he had not even spoken with Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche about the case, a gap the judge found stunning given the stakes involved.
- The government now faces a June 19 deadline to produce signed, perjury-bound declarations from three senior officials — or face continued litigation in a case that has already drawn national attention and a friend-of-the-court brief from bipartisan senators.
A federal judge in Alexandria, Virginia, has indefinitely blocked the Trump administration's controversial $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund, making clear she does not trust unsworn assurances that the program has been abandoned.
The fund was announced last month as part of a settlement in a lawsuit Trump filed against the IRS over the leak of his tax returns. Nearly $1.8 billion in taxpayer money was to be distributed by five attorney general-appointed officials to those claiming they had been victims of government overreach. Though no eligible recipients were formally named, several people convicted in connection with the January 6 Capitol assault quickly announced plans to apply — and that prospect became the heart of the legal challenge.
During Friday's hearing, Judge Leonie Brinkema expressed open skepticism when a Justice Department lawyer argued the fund was no longer moving forward. She noted that none of the government's assurances had been made under penalty of perjury, and pointed to Trump's own public statements of support as evidence the program could easily be revived. She also questioned why Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche had not formally rescinded the May 18 order establishing the fund — and expressed visible frustration upon learning that the DOJ's courtroom lawyer had not even consulted Blanche about the matter.
Breaking the impasse, Brinkema gave the government until June 19 to submit sworn declarations from Blanche, Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, each stating under penalty of perjury that the fund will not be created or operated in any form. Compliance, she indicated, would likely end the case.
The lawsuit was brought by a former January 6 prosecutor, a California professor, the city of New Haven, and two nonprofits. A bipartisan brief from Senators Cory Booker and Bill Cassidy called the fund an "immediate and dire threat" to the constitutional order — language the judge cited in noting the strong public interest behind the plaintiffs' case.
In Washington, D.C., a separate federal judge took a softer line, accepting the administration's verbal assurances while warning officials not to "play possum" with the court. The Trump administration has called the legal challenges frivolous, while dozens of retired federal judges have separately asked a court to reopen Trump's original IRS lawsuit, suggesting the settlement that created the fund may have been a fraud on the court.
A federal judge in Alexandria, Virginia, on Friday made clear she does not trust the Trump administration's word that it has abandoned a controversial $1.8 billion compensation fund. U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema extended an indefinite block on the so-called anti-weaponization fund, rejecting the Justice Department's argument that the case should be dismissed because the program is no longer moving forward.
The fund was announced last month as part of a settlement in a lawsuit President Trump filed against the IRS over the leak of his tax returns. The $1.776 billion was meant to "provide a systematic process to hear and redress claims of others who suffered weaponization and lawfare," according to the Justice Department. Five people appointed by the attorney general would have authority to distribute payouts. Though the department did not specify who could benefit, several people convicted in connection with the January 6 Capitol assault and other Trump allies quickly announced plans to apply for relief. This prospect—that nearly $1.8 billion in taxpayer dollars could flow to people convicted of crimes stemming from the Capitol riot—became the core of the legal challenge.
During Friday's hearing, Brinkema expressed deep skepticism about the government's claims. Andrew Block, a Justice Department lawyer, argued that the fund "had not been set up and is now not going forward." But the judge noted that none of these assurances were made under penalty of perjury, which meant the case remained live. She also pointed to recent public statements from Trump expressing support for the fund as evidence that the administration could revive it. "When the president says he wants something," Brinkema said, "that's a pretty good indicator there will be an incentive and motive to make it happen."
The judge questioned why Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche had not rescinded the May 18 order that established the fund in the first place, or committed his position to writing. Block said he had not spoken with Blanche about the matter. Brinkema responded with visible frustration, saying she could not believe that given "the significance of the case," Block would not have discussed this with his superior. The lack of communication, she said, created a "huge gap" in the record.
Brinkema gave the government one week—until June 19—to submit a sworn declaration signed by Acting Attorney General Blanche, Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, under penalty of perjury, stating that they will not create or operate the anti-weaponization fund "in any manner, or under any name." If the Justice Department complies, the judge indicated she would likely dismiss the case. If not, litigation will continue.
The judge also cited a friend-of-the-court brief from Senators Cory Booker, a New Jersey Democrat, and Bill Cassidy, a Louisiana Republican, who called the fund an "immediate and dire threat" to the constitutional order. Brinkema said the public interest in the case was "very, very strong" in support of the plaintiffs. The lawsuit was brought by a former prosecutor who worked on January 6 cases, a California professor, the city of New Haven, Connecticut, and two nonprofit organizations, Common Cause and the National Abortion Federation.
Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, which is representing the plaintiffs, called the ruling "a significant victory for the Constitution, the rule of law, and people in America." She said the court had recognized the serious legal concerns about "the Trump-Vance administration's attempt to create a secretive, taxpayer-funded compensation program operating outside the constitutional safeguards that govern public spending."
Meanwhile, a separate federal judge in Washington, D.C., took a different approach in another lawsuit challenging the fund. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon accepted the Justice Department's verbal assurances that the program is not proceeding, though he warned the administration: "Don't play possum with this court." The Trump administration has called the legal challenges "frivolous" and argued it had the authority to reach the settlement. Additionally, dozens of retired federal judges have asked the court to reopen Trump's original lawsuit against the IRS, arguing that the settlement leading to the anti-weaponization fund may have been a "fraud on the Court."
Citações Notáveis
The court recognized the serious legal concerns raised by the Trump-Vance administration's attempt to create a secretive, taxpayer-funded compensation program operating outside the constitutional safeguards that govern public spending.— Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward
Given the significance of the case, I cannot believe you would not have spoken with the acting attorney general about why he hasn't rescinded the order creating the anti-weaponization fund.— Judge Leonie Brinkema
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why does a judge need a sworn declaration when the Justice Department has already said the fund isn't moving forward?
Because words without legal consequence are just words. The judge watched the president say publicly that he supports the fund, then watched a Justice Department lawyer claim it's dead. She's seen administrations change course before. A sworn declaration under penalty of perjury means someone goes to prison if they lie.
But if no one has been appointed to administer the fund yet, doesn't that suggest it really isn't happening?
That's what the government argued. The judge wasn't convinced. She pointed out that the order creating the fund still exists—it was never rescinded. And the fact that the acting attorney general hasn't even bothered to put his position in writing, or talk to his own lawyer about why he won't rescind the order, suggested to her that the administration isn't serious about abandoning it.
What's the actual harm if the fund sits dormant while the courts decide?
The plaintiffs' lawyer made that exact point—there's no harm to the government in blocking it temporarily. The real question is whether it's constitutional at all. Using $1.8 billion in taxpayer money to compensate people convicted of crimes related to January 6 raises fundamental questions about how government spending is supposed to work.
So the judge in D.C. took the government at its word, but this judge didn't. Why the difference?
Different judges, different courtrooms, different standards. The D.C. judge accepted verbal assurances but warned them not to play games. This judge wanted something ironclad. She's essentially saying: if you're serious about abandoning this, prove it under oath. If you won't, then I don't believe you.