Judge Blocks Trump's Controversial Anti-Weaponization Fund

Court Halts Unprecedented $1.8 Billion Program

A federal judge temporarily blocked the government from doling out money from President Trump's new "anti-weaponization" fund Friday, with U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Alexandria, Virginia, also barring the government from with the fund's creation while litigation is pending to challenge it. The judge indicated the pause is meant to ensure no money is "irreversibly disbursed" from the fund until she can rule on an emergency motion to block it.

The $1.776 billion fund was created as part of a settlement in a suit Trump filed against the IRS over the leak of his tax returns. The Justice Department said the program aims to "provide a systematic process to hear and redress claims of others who suffered weaponization and lawfare," with a five-member board determining payouts from the $1.7 billion pot.

The judge, who was nominated to the bench by President Bill Clinton, scheduled a June 12 hearing for arguments on whether to extend the order blocking payouts from the fund. Democracy Forward President and CEO Skye Perryman said the judge's order "recognized the urgent need to prevent taxpayer dollars from being distributed through a secretive and unprecedented political compensation scheme."

Bipartisan Opposition and Legal Challenges

Both Democrats and Republicans have criticized the fund, with opponents labeling it a massive "slush fund" for President Donald Trump's allies. The Trump administration has come under pressure over the fund, including from both Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill, due to concerns that people involved in the Jan. 6 attack would seek and receive payments.

At least two other lawsuits, both filed separately in Washington, also are challenging the fund's creation. On Wednesday, a coalition of 35 former federal judges urged the judge who oversaw Trump's lawsuit against the IRS to reopen the case and consider whether the extraordinary deal to wrap up the challenge was an act of fraud.

Legal experts say the fund is rife with legal and ethical issues that only Congress is likely to be able to address, with the fund appearing to be a rare area of bipartisan agreement in both the House and Senate. Critics argue the fund was "created following a collusive agreement between the President and his own administration" with "no congressional authorization, no basis in law, and no accountability."

Controversial Settlement Details

The massive pot of money is being drawn from the DOJ's Judgment Fund, which is taxpayer money set aside by Congress for monetary settlements the government reaches. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche signed a memo blocking the IRS from taking any action against Trump with regard to his past tax returns, a move that comes after years of scrutiny around whether the president dodged tax payments up to $100 million.

The Trump administration moved to set up the fund just ahead of court deadlines over a $10 billion lawsuit Trump filed against the executive branch he controls, with Trump's private attorneys dismissing the case and announcing a settlement the day the fund was announced. The settlement includes an unprecedented waiver that goes beyond typical claims, with one expert describing it as "effectively a self-pardon" for Trump on his past tax dealings.

What's Next

A Justice Department spokesperson said it "remains extremely confident in the legality of the Anti-Weaponization Fund which is supported by ample precedent, including Obama-era settlements," adding "We will not allow the policy preferences of judges to interfere with our efforts to provide restitution to victims of lawfare."

The legal battle reflects broader tensions over executive power and congressional oversight of government spending. While Trump has defended the fund as compensation for those wrongly targeted by previous administrations, critics see it as an unprecedented use of taxpayer money for political purposes. The outcome of these cases could establish important precedents for how future administrations handle similar settlement arrangements and the limits of executive authority over federal funds.

As one legal expert noted, "This is one where Congress needs to step up and do its job and protect its constitutional power of the purse, so that this kind of thing doesn't happen. This should not be allowed to go forward, but I think it's Congress that's going to have to fix it."