DOJ Again Refuses Judge's Sworn Pledge Ending $1.8 Billion Fund
On Friday, June 19, 2026, the Justice Department told Judge Leonie Brinkema's court it would not submit sworn declarations saying the $1.776 billion anti-weaponization fund is dead.[1]
In a five-page filing, DOJ said such declarations are unnecessary and that forcing sworn testimony from senior officials would raise "serious separation of powers concerns." MS NOW The department told the court Blanche's earlier statements to Congress and in court were given "under the backdrop of serious penalties for falsity," citing the criminal false-statements statute and federal-court conduct rules.[1] The filing also notes the false-statements law it relies on can only be enforced by DOJ and that the court rules it cites typically lead to monetary sanctions rather than criminal contempt.[1] Judge Leonie Brinkema had said she would likely dismiss the challenge if the officials signed perjury-backed pledges, but would proceed if they declined — and DOJ declined.[1]
On May 18, 2026, the parties announced a settlement that ended a $10 billion suit by President Trump, his sons and the Trump Organization. The agreement included a formal apology and the Justice Department's creation of a $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund drawn from the Treasury Judgment Fund.
A coalition of nonprofits and a former prosecutor sued in the Eastern District of Virginia, and Judge Brinkema issued a temporary restraining order on May 29 that blocked work on the fund. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told the court on June 2 that the fund would not proceed. On June 12-13, Brinkema converted the order into a preliminary injunction and required sworn declarations from Blanche, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward stating the program will not be revived.
Blanche's refusal to sign a perjury-backed pledge is expected to intensify scrutiny on Capitol Hill as his nomination for permanent attorney general awaits Senate action.[1]
The mainstream summary does not mention that the settlement which led to the creation of the $1.776 billion fund resolved a $10 billion lawsuit filed by President Trump and his family against the IRS and Treasury Department over leaked tax returns. This context highlights the contentious background of the fund, which was established not as a direct compensation but rather as part of a legal resolution that included a formal apology but no monetary damages. This aspect raises questions about the motivations behind the fund's establishment and the implications of its ongoing legal challenges. Furthermore, while the DOJ argues that existing congressional testimonies carry legal weight, critics on social media, including @falgallagher and @kylegriffin1, emphasize that the refusal to provide a sworn declaration could significantly impact Todd Blanche's confirmation as attorney general, suggesting that the political ramifications of this decision are more pronounced than the mainstream coverage indicates. The mainstream account downplays these potential consequences, focusing primarily on the legal technicalities without addressing the broader implications for governance and institutional trust.
Show source details & analysis (2 sources)
📊 Relevant Data
The settlement resolved a $10 billion lawsuit filed by President Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, and the Trump Organization against the IRS and Treasury Department over the leak of tax returns.
Trump tax returns get protection from IRS under fund settlement — CNBC
Under the settlement agreement, the Trump plaintiffs received a formal apology but no monetary payment or damages of any kind in exchange for the creation of the $1.776 billion fund.
Justice Department Announces Anti-Weaponization Fund — U.S. Department of Justice
The $1.776 billion fund is financed from the Judgment Fund, a permanent congressional appropriation established in 1956 to pay judgments and settlements against the U.S. government.
Overview of the Department of Justice's Anti-Weaponization Fund — U.S. Department of Justice
📌 Key Facts
- On Friday, June 19, 2026, DOJ filed a notice in Judge Leonie Brinkema's court explicitly refusing to submit sworn declarations from Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stating the anti-weaponization fund is dead (Judge Leonie Brinkema's court).
- The filing argues such declarations are “unnecessary” and says compelling sworn testimony from senior executive-branch officials would raise “serious separation of powers concerns” (the filing).
- DOJ's filing asserts Todd Blanche's prior statements to Congress and in court were made “under the backdrop of serious penalties for falsity,” citing the false-statements-to-Congress statute and federal-court attorney-conduct rules (Todd Blanche).
- The article notes the criminal false-statements statute DOJ cites can only be enforced by DOJ itself and that the cited court rules generally contemplate monetary sanctions rather than criminal contempt (criminal false-statements statute).
- Judge Brinkema had indicated she would likely dismiss the legal challenge if sworn declarations were submitted but would proceed if DOJ declined — and DOJ has now chosen not to submit them (Judge Brinkema).
- Blanche's refusal to sign a perjury-backed pledge is expected to fuel political backlash on Capitol Hill, where his nomination to become permanent attorney general is pending (Capitol Hill).
📰 Source Timeline (2)
Follow how coverage of this story developed over time
- On Friday, June 19, 2026, DOJ filed a notice in Judge Leonie Brinkema's court explicitly refusing to submit sworn declarations from Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stating the anti-weaponization fund is dead.
- The filing argues such declarations are 'unnecessary' and that compelling sworn testimony from senior executive-branch officials raises 'serious separation of powers concerns.'
- DOJ's filing asserts Blanche's prior statements to Congress and in court were made 'under the backdrop of serious penalties for falsity,' citing the false-statements-to-Congress statute and federal-court attorney-conduct rules.
- The article notes that the criminal false-statements statute DOJ relies on can only be enforced by DOJ itself, and that the cited court rules generally contemplate monetary sanctions rather than criminal contempt.
- Judge Brinkema previously indicated she would likely dismiss the legal challenge if sworn declarations were submitted, but would move forward with the case if DOJ declined; DOJ has now chosen not to submit them.
- The piece underscores that Blanche's refusal to sign a perjury-backed pledge is expected to fuel political backlash on Capitol Hill, where his nomination to become permanent attorney general is pending.