Federal Judge Extends Block On DOJ $1.8 Billion Anti-Weaponization Fund
A federal judge on Friday extended a block on the Justice Department's roughly $1.8 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund, keeping the program barred unless the court says otherwise.[1]
U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema granted a preliminary injunction that bars DOJ from appointing the fund's five-member board, drawing on the Treasury Judgment Fund, or issuing awards.[2] She gave the department one week to file a sworn declaration, signed under penalty of perjury by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, saying the fund will not go forward.[1]
On May 18, 2026, the Justice Department agreed to create the roughly $1.776 billion fund as part of a settlement of former President Donald Trump's lawsuit over leaked tax returns.[1] DOJ has not formed the fund's board, accepted claims, paid money, or rescinded the May 18 order establishing procedures, facts the courts relied on while questioning the department's argument that the dispute is moot.[1]
Earlier this week a separate federal judge in Washington denied an emergency request and treated DOJ assurances as mooting the case, but warned officials, "Don't play possum." MS NOW Brinkema said unsworn public statements are not "uncontestable" proof the program is dead and cited President Trump's public praise and a bipartisan amicus brief warning of constitutional risks.[2]
The mainstream summary does not mention that the Anti-Weaponization Fund is sourced from the Treasury Judgment Fund, which is specifically a congressional appropriation for settling claims against the federal government, a detail that highlights the fund's legal and financial underpinnings. This context is crucial because it frames the fund's establishment within a broader legislative framework, raising questions about its legitimacy and the implications of its blockage. Additionally, the settlement agreement stipulates that the fund must cease processing all claims by December 1, 2028, a timeline that underscores the urgency and potential consequences of the current legal proceedings, which the summary fails to articulate.
Moreover, while the mainstream account notes the judge's skepticism about the DOJ's assurances, it does not convey the broader public sentiment reflected in social media discussions, where users emphasize the judge's warning against 'playing possum' and the legal ramifications of the ongoing settlement. This perspective suggests a deeper public concern regarding the judiciary's role in overseeing executive actions, a nuance that the mainstream summary overlooks, potentially underestimating the implications for public trust in the legal system.
Show source details & analysis (8 sources)
📊 Relevant Data
The Anti-Weaponization Fund draws its $1.776 billion from the Treasury Judgment Fund, a standing congressional appropriation for settling claims against the federal government.
Justice Department Announces Anti-Weaponization Fund — U.S. Department of Justice
The settlement agreement requires the Anti-Weaponization Fund to cease processing all claims no later than December 1, 2028.
Justice Department Announces Anti-Weaponization Fund — U.S. Department of Justice
The May 18, 2026 settlement includes a separate addendum permanently barring the government from pursuing tax claims or audits against Donald Trump, his sons, and the Trump Organization for returns filed before the agreement date.
Trump v. Internal Revenue Service — Wikipedia
📌 Key Facts
- On Wednesday, June 10, 2026, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon in Washington, D.C., denied CREW’s request for a temporary restraining order to immediately halt implementation of the Justice Department’s roughly $1.776 billion Anti‑Weaponization Fund (U.S. District Judge Richard Leon).
- At the roughly 30‑minute June 10 hearing, DOJ attorney Andrew Block repeatedly cited Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s June 2 congressional testimony that the administration is “not moving forward” with the fund, and Block said he could not explain why DOJ would not formally rescind the May 18 order establishing the fund as Judge Leon warned officials, “Don't play possum” (Andrew Block).
- Judge Leon denied only the emergency TRO as moot for now—saying he was “not persuaded a live controversy remains”—but left CREW’s request for a longer‑term preliminary injunction under consideration and said he would rule on that separately (preliminary injunction).
- On Friday, June 12, 2026, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Alexandria granted a preliminary injunction extending a prior block and ordered DOJ barred from appointing the fund’s five‑member board, drawing on the Treasury Judgment Fund, or issuing awards unless and until the court says otherwise; she gave DOJ one week to file a sworn declaration signed under penalty of perjury by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stating the fund will not go forward, and said she would likely dismiss the case if such a declaration is filed (Leonie Brinkema).
- Brinkema rejected DOJ’s mootness defense because public, unsworn assurances are not “uncontestable” evidence the program is dead, citing President Trump’s continued public praise for the fund and reading from an amicus brief by Senators Cory Booker and Bill Cassidy that called the program an “immediate and dire threat” to constitutional order (amicus brief by Sens. Cory Booker and Bill Cassidy).
- The fund originated as part of a May 2026 settlement of former President Trump’s civil suit over leaked tax returns, was structured to be overseen by a five‑member board appointed by the attorney general, and is valued at roughly $1.776–$1.8 billion (May 2026 settlement).
- Brinkema said it would be “problematic” for nearly $1.8 billion in taxpayer funds to be distributed to individuals convicted of Jan. 6‑related crimes and noted that roughly 1,500 Jan. 6 defendants pardoned by President Trump in 2025 are among those most likely to benefit, warning the administration should not be allowed to evade judicial review (1,500 Jan. 6 defendants pardoned).
- DOJ has not formed the five‑member commission, has not accepted claims or paid money, and has not rescinded the underlying settlement or the May 18 internal order establishing fund procedures—facts the courts relied on while also finding that unsworn public statements by officials are insufficient to resolve the disputes (May 18 order establishing the fund).
📰 Source Timeline (8)
Follow how coverage of this story developed over time
- On Friday, June 12, 2026, Judge Leonie Brinkema not only extended but effectively made her injunction against the $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund indefinite, keeping implementation blocked unless DOJ formally terminates it.
- Brinkema ordered the Justice Department to provide, within one week of June 12, 2026, a written statement that the fund is being terminated and will not be reinstated, finding public assurances alone insufficient.
- The article clarifies that Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told Congress the fund 'would not move forward,' but DOJ has not yet rescinded the underlying settlement agreement or the May 18 internal order establishing fund procedures.
- Judge Richard Leon earlier in the week denied CREW's emergency request to block the fund, treating DOJ's representations as mooting the case, but he warned officials in open court, 'Don't play possum with me.'
- President Donald Trump said on 'Meet the Press' over the June 6-7 weekend that he would like to continue with the fund, which Brinkema cited as evidence it might 'rear its head' in the future.
- On Friday, June 12, 2026, Judge Leonie Brinkema expressly extended the preliminary block she first issued May 29, reiterating that the Anti-Weaponization Fund cannot be launched.
- Brinkema read aloud in court from a bipartisan amicus brief by Sens. Bill Cassidy and Cory Booker warning that the fund 'presents an immediate and dire threat to our constitutional order and the authority of Congress' and is 'designed to compensate the insurrectionists who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6th.'
- The article specifies that roughly 1,500 Jan. 6 defendants pardoned by President Trump in 2025 are among those most likely to benefit from the fund.
- It notes that Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told Congress on June 2, 2026, 'we're not moving forward with the fund, period,' but Brinkema found his oral assurances and refusal to put a rescission in writing insufficient to moot the case.
- The piece reports Trump’s June 7, 2026 pre-taped 'Meet the Press' interview in which he said, 'I think the weaponization fund is a great idea, and so do many other Republicans. You have to get it approved,' which Brinkema cited as evidence the fund could still be pursued.
- Brinkema stated from the bench that the administration 'should not be able to evade judicial review by temporarily altering behavior,' rejecting DOJ’s argument that Blanche’s statements alone ended the controversy.
- The article adds that DOJ has moved to dismiss the suit as moot, while a coalition of former Jan. 6 prosecutors and nonprofits continues to litigate, arguing Blanche’s statements are not legally binding and pointing to Trump’s ongoing public advocacy.
- Trump publicly attacked Brinkema’s May 29 order on Truth Social, calling her 'a radical leftist judge,' a criticism she referenced during June 12 arguments with DOJ counsel.
- On Friday, June 12, 2026, Judge Leonie Brinkema in Alexandria expanded on her earlier temporary restraining order by granting a preliminary injunction that continues to bar DOJ from establishing or operating the roughly $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund.
- Brinkema said she would consider the dispute moot and lift the injunction if, within one week of June 12, 2026, DOJ files a sworn declaration signed under penalty of perjury by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stating the fund will not go forward.
- The judge rejected DOJ arguments that public statements by Blanche and other officials were sufficient proof that the program had been abandoned, emphasizing that non-sworn assurances could not resolve the case.
- Brinkema cited President Trump’s continued public praise of the Anti-Weaponization Fund and an amicus brief by Senators Cory Booker and Bill Cassidy calling the program an 'immediate and dire threat' to constitutional order as reasons to doubt that the fund was truly dead without formal sworn commitments.
- Her order underscores that until such sworn declarations are filed and accepted, DOJ remains barred from appointing the fund’s five-member board, drawing money from the Treasury Judgment Fund, or issuing any awards.
- On Friday, June 12, 2026, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Alexandria formally extended her injunction, ordering that the Anti-Weaponization Fund remains blocked 'until further notice from the court.'
- Brinkema gave the parties one week from June 12, 2026 to negotiate an agreement under which Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche would submit a sworn declaration that the administration will not revive the fund.
- Brinkema explicitly rejected DOJ’s mootness argument, stating in court that the government's mootness claim 'doesn't go anywhere.'
- The article notes that President Donald Trump has continued to voice public support for the fund and has not 'publicly and unequivocally' endorsed its cancellation.
- In a parallel case, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday, June 10, 2026, denied a watchdog group's request for a temporary block on the fund, saying he accepted Blanche’s representation that the fund is now moot.
- Judge Leon questioned why Blanche has not formally rescinded his May 18, 2026 order establishing the fund; DOJ counsel could not answer that question before either Leon or Brinkema.
- The PBS piece reaffirms that DOJ has not formed the five-member commission to run the fund and that no claims have been accepted or money paid out.
- On Friday, June 12, 2026, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Alexandria, Virginia granted a preliminary injunction continuing to block the Justice Department from creating or operating the approximately $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund.
- Brinkema rejected DOJ arguments that the case is moot based on Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche's statements that the fund is not going forward, noting those assurances were not made under penalty of perjury and thus do not provide "uncontestable" evidence the program is dead.
- The judge ordered the government to file within one week a sworn declaration signed by Blanche and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, under penalty of perjury, stating the fund will not move forward; she indicated that if such a declaration is filed, she is likely to dismiss the case as moot.
- Brinkema cited recent public statements by President Trump praising or supporting the fund, and read from an amicus brief filed by Sens. Cory Booker and Bill Cassidy that warns the fund poses an "immediate and dire threat" to constitutional order by enabling payouts to some people convicted in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol attack.
- She characterized as "problematic" the prospect that nearly $1.8 billion in taxpayer funds could be distributed to individuals convicted of Jan. 6-related crimes, underscoring the court's public-interest finding in favor of the plaintiffs.
- The article reiterates that the fund originated as part of a May 2026 settlement of Trump's civil suit over leaked tax returns, was structured to be overseen by a five-member board appointed by the attorney general, and that some Jan. 6 convicts and Trump allies publicly expressed plans to apply before the court's initial temporary freeze.
- On Wednesday, June 10, 2026, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon denied CREW's request for a temporary restraining order to immediately halt implementation of DOJ's roughly $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund.
- Leon said he was "not persuaded a live controversy remains" and accepted DOJ's argument that Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has vowed not to move forward with the fund, but warned the department, "Don't play possum with this court."
- Leon stated he will rule separately on CREW's request for a preliminary injunction, leaving longer-term relief still under consideration.
- In the hearing, DOJ attorney Andrew Block told Leon he did not know why DOJ would not formally rescind the order establishing the fund and argued the case is moot because no board members have been appointed, no processes adopted, no claims submitted and no money paid.
- CREW lawyer Nikhel Sus argued the fund's charter remains "in full force and effect" and that Blanche's statements are not a valid legal rescission because the settlement order has not been modified in writing by the parties.
- On Wednesday, June 10, 2026, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon in Washington, D.C., denied CREW's request for a temporary restraining order to immediately block implementation of the Anti-Weaponization Fund.
- During the roughly 30-minute June 10 hearing, DOJ lawyer Andrew Block repeatedly cited Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche's June 2 congressional testimony that the administration is 'not moving forward' with creating the nearly $1.8 billion fund.
- Judge Leon said he agreed the case appears moot for now and that he was not persuaded there is currently an issue for the court to decide regarding creation of the fund, but he warned DOJ, 'Don't play possum with this court!'
- CREW attorney Nikhel Sur argued that Blanche's refusal to formally memorialize a rescission of the May 18 settlement was 'highly unusual', and Leon twice asked DOJ why it would not simply rescind the order establishing the fund; Block responded, 'I don't know.'
- Leon denied only the emergency TRO and indicated he is still considering CREW's request for a longer-term block on the fund, while a separate block order from a federal judge in Virginia remains in effect until at least Friday, June 12, 2026.
- DOJ maintained in court that the fund is not moving forward even though former President Trump continues to publicly defend it; Block told the court that Trump's comments do not constitute 'a direction to move forward with the fund.'