U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Alexandria, Virginia, continued to block the Trump administration’s proposed Anti‑Weaponization Fund and said she would likely dismiss the case if top officials file sworn statements abandoning the program, court records show. The story centers on the legal challenge to the roughly $1.8 billion fund.
At a hearing, Brinkema rejected the Justice Department’s argument that the case was moot after Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told Congress the fund was “not moving forward,” saying such statements are not equivalent to a sworn declaration under penalty of perjury, according to POLITICO and CBS News reporting.
Brinkema gave the government a short deadline to file sworn declarations from Blanche and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent — and in CBS’s account she also asked for Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward to sign — saying she would likely drop the suit if those officials filed written, perjury‑sworn assurances that the fund will not proceed.
Both POLITICO and CBS report the judge cited public comments from President Trump expressing support for the idea as evidence the administration might seek to revive the program, undermining claims of mootness.
The Justice Department announced the program as part of a settlement tied to a dispute over IRS disclosures and said the fund would set aside about $1.776 billion to compensate people who alleged “weaponization and lawfare,” CBS reported. Brinkema has kept a preliminary injunction in place that prevents the government from creating or operating the fund while the litigation progresses.
Plaintiffs include a former prosecutor who worked Jan. 6 cases and nonprofit groups that argue the fund would improperly distribute taxpayer money outside ordinary appropriations and oversight. Brinkema told the government’s lawyer she saw a “big gap” in the record because no formal rescission of the May 18 order establishing fund procedures had been filed.
The judge warned that if the officials do not supply the sworn statements she will allow plaintiffs to pursue fact‑finding into the fund’s origins and status, a step that could widen discovery and keep the program frozen for months, POLITICO reports.
Legal observers say the order raises the stakes for the administration because Brinkema’s demand puts the dispute into a recordable, sworn form rather than relying on congressional testimony or court filings the judge found insufficient, and because a continued injunction would bar any payouts while the courts weigh constitutional and statutory challenges, according to CBS.
How this unfolds may influence other related suits: a judge in Washington, D.C., has reached a different view of mootness in a separate case where officials’ statements were credited by that court, showing divergent federal court approaches could shape whether the fund can be revived or must be abandoned, POLITICO notes.
Sources
- POLITICO — coverage of Brinkema’s hearing and her statement that she will likely dismiss the case if top officials file sworn declarations abandoning the project.
- CBS News — reporting that the fund would set aside about $1.776 billion and that the judge demanded sworn declarations from Justice and Treasury officials or will allow fact‑finding to proceed.
