Judge Questions DOJ Trustworthiness as Trump $1.8 Billion Fund Case Moves Forward
A federal judge kept alive a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s nearly $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” ruling that the Justice Department’s refusal to swear the program is permanently dead leaves the dispute unresolved.
U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema said DOJ had declined to provide a “short, written declaration under penalty of perjury” confirming that the government would not revive or operate the fund. Instead, the department pointed to Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s congressional testimony and statements in court that the fund was not moving forward.
Brinkema said that was not enough.
The judge wrote that DOJ’s refusal to give its assurances a “genuine degree of trustworthiness” was particularly concerning because President Donald Trump has continued to support compensating alleged victims of government “weaponization,” while Blanche has acknowledged the fund remains “important.” She concluded that the lawsuit is not moot and ordered DOJ to respond by July 17.
The fund was created as part of a settlement tied to Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax records. DOJ described the fund as a process for compensating people harmed by government overreach, saying there were no partisan requirements to file a claim and that unused money would return to the federal government.
Subscribe free for daily political analysis they won’t broadcast. Join 110K+ readers →
Plaintiffs represented by Democracy Forward argue the plan unlawfully bypasses Congress’s spending authority and creates a politically discriminatory payout system. Critics have described the fund as a taxpayer-backed benefit for Trump allies, including potential claimants connected to Jan. 6 cases.
Social reaction has centered on the judge’s demand for sworn confirmation. Newsweek and Forbes amplified the “trustworthiness” language on social platforms, while Reddit legal communities focused on DOJ’s refusal to put the fund’s cancellation under oath.
The practical consequence is straightforward: DOJ cannot end the lawsuit through verbal assurances alone. Unless the department formally rescinds the fund or proves it cannot be revived, the case can move into evidence collection.
Subscribe free for daily political analysis they won’t broadcast. Join 110K+ readers →