Full Breakdown
Judge Extends Indefinite Block on Trump Anti-Weaponization Fund
6/13/2026, 4:31:31 AM
Background & Context
The “anti-weaponization” fund was created in May 2026 as part of a settlement that ended President Donald Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns. The settlement directed $1.776 billion into a designated account to compensate individuals who claim they were targeted by “weaponized” government actions. No five-member commission to administer payouts was ever formed, and no applications were accepted before the litigation began.
Plaintiffs & Key Groups
The Virginia lawsuit was filed by a coalition that includes former federal prosecutor Andrew Floyd, political-science professor Jonathan Caravello, the city of New Haven, Connecticut, the advocacy organizations Common Cause, National Abortion Federation, and the nonprofit Democracy Forward (led by Skye Perryman). Pooja Boisture, senior counsel for Democracy Forward, also represents the plaintiffs.
Legal Timeline
- May 29: Judge Leonie Brinkema (Eastern District of Virginia) issued a temporary injunction halting any work on the fund.
- June 2: Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche testified to Congress that the administration was “not moving forward with the fund, period.”
- June 10: Judge Richard Leon (District of Columbia) declined a separate request for a restraining order, calling the case “moot” but warning the DOJ “don’t play possum.”
- June 12: Brinkema extended the injunction indefinitely, demanding a sworn declaration from Blanche and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent that the fund is permanently dead. She gave the government one week to comply.
Data & Statistics
- Fund amount: $1.776 billion (referencing the year 1776).
- Settlement amount with the IRS: $10 billion.
- Potential beneficiaries include roughly 1,500 individuals charged in the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol attack.
- No board members appointed; no money transferred; no claims processed.
Official Statements & Responses
The court noted that Blanche’s congressional remarks and the Justice Department’s filings were not made under penalty of perjury, rendering the “mootness” argument insufficient. Brinkema emphasized the lack of “uncontestable evidence” that the fund will not reappear. The DOJ maintains that the fund is abandoned, while President Trump has repeatedly expressed personal support for the concept, describing it as “a great idea” on national television.
Criticism & Opposition
Critics label the proposal a “slush fund” that could reward Trump allies and Jan. 6 rioters. Senators Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Bill Cassidy (R-LA) argued the fund threatens constitutional order by bypassing congressional control of spending. Democracy Forward and Common Cause contend the scheme violates the Constitution’s appropriation clause and could undermine accountability for the Capitol attack.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
- The Justice Department has not rescinded the May 18 order establishing the fund.
- DOJ attorney Andrew Block could not explain why the order remains in place.
- President Trump’s public comments suggest continued interest, while Blanche’s testimony asserts abandonment. The court identified a “huge gap in the record” regarding the fund’s status.
Verbatim Quotes
- “When the President of the United States says" that he wants something, referring to Trump, Brinkema said "that's a pretty good indicator there will be an incentive and motive to make it happen," CNN reported.” — Judge Leonie Brinkema
- “We are not moving forward with the fund, period.” — Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche
- “If it was up to me, I'd pay them the kind of money that they deserve. People have been destroyed. Lives have been destroyed,” — President Donald Trump
- “The Anti-Weaponization Fund presents an immediate and dire threat to our constitutional order and the authority of Congress,” — Senators Cory Booker & Bill Cassidy (friend-of-the-court brief)
- “This ruling is a significant victory for the Constitution, the rule of law, and people in America,” — Skye Perryman, Democracy Forward
- “We’ve successfully locked the president’s personal slush fund for now, and we’ll keep the pressure on until it’s shut down for good.” — Omar Noureldin, Common Cause
What’s Next
If Blanche and Bessent submit a sworn declaration that the fund is permanently terminated, Brinkema may dismiss the case as moot. Absent such a declaration, the preliminary injunction remains in force, and the plaintiffs will continue pursuing a permanent block. Both courts in Virginia and D.C. are poised to address any further attempts by the administration to revive the fund.
