Story perspectives

DOJ Declares $1.8B Anti-Weaponization Fund Dead, Judge Blocks

6/6/2026

Summary

Story summary

DOJ filed briefs arguing the anti-weaponization fund is moot because no money was transferred and no panel was appointed.
The U.S. Department of Justice told federal judges the $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund will not be implemented and requested dismissal of the pending lawsuits.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told a House appropriations subcommittee that the Justice Department is “not moving forward with the fund, period.”
President Donald Trump said he does not know whether the fund is dead or merely on hold and called it “a beautiful thing.”
U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema temporarily blocked the fund and scheduled a June 12 hearing to consider a longer-term injunction while multiple plaintiffs continue litigation.

History

Historical Context

The 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, signed by President Bill Clinton on September 13 1994, earmarked $100 billion, created 100,000 police posts and launched the DOJ’s COPS Office, which has dispensed $14 billion to local agencies. That massive, litigated federal spending model now frames the $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund promoted by Attorney General Todd Blanche and contested by Judge Leonie Brinkema.

1 of 2

Story summary

DOJ filed briefs arguing the anti-weaponization fund is moot because no money was transferred and no panel was appointed.
The U.S. Department of Justice told federal judges the $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund will not be implemented and requested dismissal of the pending lawsuits.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told a House appropriations subcommittee that the Justice Department is “not moving forward with the fund, period.”
President Donald Trump said he does not know whether the fund is dead or merely on hold and called it “a beautiful thing.”
U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema temporarily blocked the fund and scheduled a June 12 hearing to consider a longer-term injunction while multiple plaintiffs continue litigation.

1 / 2