Judge Extends Block on Trump’s $1.8 Billion Anti-Weaponization Fund

A federal judge has extended a court order blocking the Trump administration from moving forward with its proposed $1.8 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund, keeping the controversial program on hold while legal challenges continue.

The decision came Friday when U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema ruled that the administration had failed to prove the dispute was resolved, despite recent statements indicating the fund would no longer move forward.

Court rejects administration’s argument

The Trump administration recently informed Congress that it planned to abandon the Anti-Weaponization Fund following bipartisan criticism. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche testified that the Department of Justice no longer intended to implement the program.

However, Judge Brinkema concluded that those assurances were not enough to dismiss ongoing lawsuits challenging the fund.

“The mootness argument, in my view, doesn’t go anywhere,” Brinkema said during the hearing.

The judge ordered that the existing injunction remain in place until further action by the court.

Questions remain about the fund’s future

Although Blanche told lawmakers the administration would not proceed with the program, President Donald Trump has continued to publicly support the concept.

That contradiction became a central issue during Friday’s hearing.

Brinkema directed both sides to negotiate a framework that could require senior administration officials, including Blanche, to submit sworn declarations confirming that the government will not revive the fund in the future.

The judge also questioned why the administration has not formally rescinded the May 18 order that originally established the program.

Government attorney Andrew Block acknowledged he could not provide a clear answer.

“It’s a huge gap in the record that we don’t have an answer to that question,” Brinkema said.

What is the Anti-Weaponization Fund?

The Trump Anti-Weaponization Fund was created as part of a settlement related to Trump’s lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the disclosure of his tax returns.

The administration proposed using approximately $1.8 billion to compensate individuals who claim they were harmed by what it describes as government weaponization.

Critics argue the fund could effectively become a taxpayer-financed compensation program benefiting Trump allies and political supporters.

Several organizations and individuals filed lawsuits seeking to block the initiative, arguing that the executive branch lacks legal authority to redirect federal funds in this manner.

Plaintiffs challenge legality of payouts

The plaintiffs include advocacy organization Common Cause, the National Abortion Federation, the city of New Haven, Connecticut, a former federal prosecutor and a college professor who was acquitted of charges related to a protest involving federal agents.

Represented by Democracy Forward, the plaintiffs contend that the fund violates federal spending laws and could create an unlawful mechanism for distributing taxpayer money.

Attorney Pooja Boisture argued that if the administration were allowed to revive the program, it could cause irreparable harm before courts have an opportunity to fully review its legality.

Brinkema agreed that maintaining the injunction would not harm the government if the administration genuinely intends to abandon the fund.

Capitol riot concerns fueled opposition

The proposal also generated controversy because officials declined to rule out the possibility that individuals involved in the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot could qualify for compensation.

Although the fund never became operational, critics raised concerns that participants in the Capitol attack could potentially receive payments.

The Department of Justice never established the five-member commission that would have determined eligibility criteria, and no claims were accepted or paid.

Legal battle continues

The ruling means the Trump Anti-Weaponization Fund remains frozen while litigation proceeds.

The case now centers on whether the administration will formally terminate the program or leave open the possibility of reviving it in the future.

For now, the court appears unwilling to rely solely on verbal assurances and is seeking stronger legal guarantees before lifting the injunction.