A federal judge declined to block the Trump administration’s $1.776 billion anti-weaponization fund on Wednesday but issued a sharp warning to the Justice Department not to evade court oversight, signaling deep skepticism about whether the DOJ would honor its stated commitment to abandon the controversial settlement program.
U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, a George W. Bush appointee, ruled during a hearing in Washington that the lawsuit filed by the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington “appears to be moot” in light of the administration’s recent claims that the fund is no longer proceeding. However, Leon made clear his distrust was high, telling the DOJ: “I give the Justice Department this warning: Don’t play possum with me,” according to Politico.
The anti-weaponization fund ruling centers on a settlement Trump reached with the federal government over his lawsuit against the IRS regarding the leaking of his tax returns. The $1.776 billion fund was announced in May 2026 to compensate people claiming to be victims of government “weaponization” or politically motivated prosecutions. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche announced in a House hearing on June 2 that the administration was abandoning the fund entirely, saying: “We’re not moving forward with the fund, period,” according to Politico.
Yet doubts about that commitment surfaced almost immediately. In an NBC interview recorded three days after Blanche’s House testimony, President Trump expressed enthusiasm for reviving the program. “Me, personally, I think the weaponization fund is a great idea, and so do many other Republicans,” Trump told NBC’s “Meet The Press,” adding that the fund needed approval from Congress. “If they don’t get it approved, I’d be disappointed.”
Leon acknowledged Trump’s remarks but suggested the president may have been speaking for political effect rather than signaling an actual reversal. “He might be doing that … for political benefit to himself,” the judge said, according to Politico. Leon said he was entitled to rely on statements made in court filings that the fund is not proceeding, and he noted that attorneys who make false statements to the court face potential sanctions.
The judge repeatedly pressed DOJ attorney Andrew Block during the hearing about why Acting Attorney General Blanche had not formally rescinded a May 18 order establishing procedures for the fund. Block said he did not have an answer, according to Politico. A lawyer for CREW, the watchdog group, noted that under the settlement agreement, a five-person board to oversee the fund must be established by June 17, and the transfer of funds must occur by July 17, meaning that if the temporary block expires, “there’s no legal impediment to them going full-bore,” according to Politico.
The fund remains blocked through at least Friday under a separate order from U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Alexandria, Virginia, who is overseeing a different lawsuit challenging the fund. Leon questioned the validity of Brinkema’s order on Wednesday, suggesting it may have been an “administrative stay” that district court judges lack the authority to issue.
The anti-weaponization fund sparked broad backlash after its announcement, with Republicans and Democrats alike expressing concern that it could provide payouts to people involved in the January 6 Capitol riot or other controversial figures. The political pressure prompted the administration’s public retreat, though the legal framework underlying the settlement remains intact. The settlement itself was controversial, with legal experts describing Trump’s original $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS as unprecedented for a sitting president.
Sources
- Politico — Judge Richard Leon’s ruling declining to block the fund, his “play possum” warning, Trump’s NBC interview comments, and details of the hearing testimony
- NBC News — Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s testimony that the DOJ is not proceeding with the fund
- AP News / Washington Post — Confirmation of Judge Leon’s ruling and the watchdog group’s legal challenge
