Full Breakdown
DOJ Refuses Sworn Declaration on Controversial $1.8 Billion Anti-Weaponization Fund
6/20/2026, 1:36:02 AM
Judge’s Order and DOJ Response
U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema ordered the Justice Department to file a sworn declaration, under penalty of perjury, that the $1.8 billion anti-weaponization program—budgeted at $1.776 billion—will not proceed “in any manner, or under any name.” The DOJ called the request “unnecessary,” arguing that compelling senior officials raised “serious separation of powers concerns.” The filing noted no board members have been appointed and warned the lawsuit could continue without the declaration.
Origins of the Anti-Weaponization Fund
The fund was part of a settlement of President Donald Trump’s civil suit against the IRS, which sought $10 billion after a leak. The Justice Department described the $1.776 billion program as a “systematic process to hear and redress claims of weaponization and lawfare.” Critics warned it could reward Jan. 6 participants.
Official Positions (including key players)
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche testified the fund is “not moving forward, period,” and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was named in the order. The DOJ argued Blanche’s congressional testimony and prior filings satisfy the court, noting that “all these statements were made under the backdrop of serious penalties for falsity.” It said a sworn declaration would not affect mootness. Judge Brinkema stressed a written oath is required to render the case moot and warned the lawsuit would proceed otherwise.
Opposition and Criticism
Lawmakers warned the fund could channel taxpayer money to Jan. 6 participants and jeopardize the immigration agenda. Democracy Forward’s Skye Perryman said the administration “continues to refuse to say under oath that the Slush Fund is dead.” Andrew Block called the court’s request an unconstitutional intrusion on executive authority.
Conflicting Evidence
The DOJ maintains the fund is dead based on Blanche’s testimony, but the court has not received a declaration made under penalty of perjury. The judge highlighted this gap, leaving uncertainty about whether the program could be revived in another form.
Verbatim Quotes
- “No, a court ruled against it,” — Donald Trump, former President
- “Such declarations are unnecessary and the compelled testimony of senior officials from the Executive Branch implicates serious separation of powers concerns.” — Andrew Block, senior counsel to Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward
- “It is telling that even after the federal court gave them a week, the Acting Attorney General and other senior administration officials continue to refuse to say under oath that the Slush Fund is dead and won't operate in the future,” — Skye Perryman, president and CEO, Democracy Forward
- “ "When the president of the United States says he's disappointed that something is not going forward," Brinkema said, that would only add to the evidence that the fund might "rear its head" in the future.” — Leonie Brinkema, U.S. District Judge
Future Outlook
Judge Brinkema warned the lawsuit will move forward unless a sworn declaration is filed. The case may affect the Senate’s review of Blanche’s nomination and shape future oversight of executive-branch funding.
