A federal judge indefinitely blocked Trump’s $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund on June 12, 2026, ruling that the Trump administration must provide a sworn declaration that the fund will not proceed before the court will consider the matter resolved.
U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia issued a preliminary injunction blocking the fund while a lawsuit challenging it moves forward. The judge said the administration’s public statements that the fund was dead were insufficient, particularly because President Trump has repeatedly expressed continued support for the concept in recent remarks to reporters.
The fund emerged from a settlement of Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns. The Justice Department announced the $1.776 billion anti-weaponization fund on May 19, 2026, designed to compensate people the Trump administration deemed victims of “weaponization” by federal agencies.
The announcement sparked fierce backlash. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told Congress on June 1 that the Trump administration was scrapping the fund, and the Justice Department said it would not move forward with the plan. However, Trump has continued to express support for the concept, and the administration refused to formally rescind the order establishing the fund in writing.
At a June 12 hearing, Justice Department lawyer Andrew Block argued that the plaintiffs’ claims were too speculative and urged the judge not to issue an order “resting on hypotheticals.” Block also asked the judge to credit statements from Blanche to Congress and from Justice Department lawyers in court filings that the fund would not proceed. Brinkema pushed back, noting that Blanche had not formally rescinded his May 18 order creating the fund.
“There’s a huge gap in the record if you don’t have the answer to that question,” Brinkema said during the hearing, according to Reuters. The judge said it was “problematic” that the administration sought to set up a pool of taxpayer money to favor “an extremely small group” that many Americans feel engaged in “unacceptable” conduct.
The case was brought by individuals and organizations who alleged they were victims of political targeting by the Trump administration and would be ineligible for compensation from the fund. The plaintiffs argue the government cannot legally divert taxpayer money into what they characterize as a slush fund for Trump’s allies.
Brinkema gave the acting attorney general and Treasury secretary one week to sign off on a sworn statement declaring the fund would not go forward. She indicated she may revisit her ruling if the Trump administration submitted such a declaration. The judge also asked the plaintiffs if they would agree to drop the lawsuit entirely if the fund were truly rescinded.
In a separate case on June 10, a different federal judge in Washington, D.C., rejected a government watchdog’s parallel request for a court order temporarily blocking the fund, with U.S. District Judge Richard Leon accepting Blanche’s representation that the fund was moot. However, when Leon asked Justice Department attorney Andrew Block why Blanche doesn’t formally rescind the fund order, Block said he didn’t know—the same answer he gave when Brinkema posed the question two days later.
Sources
- Reuters — Judge Brinkema’s June 12 ruling indefinitely blocking the fund, her reasoning about Trump’s public statements and lack of sworn declaration, and details of the court hearing
- PBS News — Judge Brinkema’s extension of the block, Trump’s continued public support for the fund concept, and the plaintiffs’ concerns about the fund as a slush fund
- Justice Department official announcement — The May 19, 2026 establishment of the $1.776 billion anti-weaponization fund from the judgment fund
- NBC News — The Trump administration’s June 1 announcement that it was backing off the fund following Congressional backlash
