Acting U.S. Attorney Todd Blanche listens to questions from reporters during a press conference at the Department of Justice on June 11, 2026 in Washington, DC.
Win McNamee | Getty Images
A federal judge in Alexandria, Virginia, on Friday extended a stay on the Justice Department’s implementation of the Anti-Weaponization Fund, saying that acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s oral argument that the fund cannot proceed is insufficient assurance.
As Blanche testified before a House committee on June 2, Judge Leonie Brinkema gave Blanche and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent one week to file a written affidavit saying they would not proceed with the fund, MS NOW reported. During his testimony, Blanche resisted requests from lawmakers to put his arguments in writing.
Brynma’s decision to issue a preliminary injunction against the $1.8 billion fund, which could have compensated many of President Donald Trump’s allies who are facing criminal investigations and indictments, was made at the request of plaintiffs who filed a lawsuit seeking a permanent injunction against the $1.8 billion fund. The judge’s original injunction on the funds was scheduled to expire Friday.
Her ruling came two days after a federal judge in the District of Columbia denied a request by Justice Department lawyers from the Washington advocacy group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics to issue a temporary restraining order against the fund.
But the judge in the case, Richard Leon, gave a stern warning to the Justice Department lawyers: “Don’t mess around in this courtroom!” MS NOW reported on Wednesday that Leung said he would continue to consider CREW’s request for a long-term block on the fund.
The Department of Justice announced May 18 that the fund was created as part of President Trump’s settlement of a $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service for leaking tax records by an IRS contractor.
The fund was intended to compensate alleged victims of prosecutorial overreach by the Justice Department under the Biden administration. The actual amount allocated to this fund is $1.776 billion, which clearly indicates the year the Declaration of Independence was signed.
The fund was heavily criticized by Congressional Democrats and some Republicans, particularly because it could be used to pay people who have pleaded guilty to crimes related to the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol, including defendants who assaulted police officers that day.
The Justice Department announced it would eliminate the fund following backlash from Senate Republicans who reversed plans to pass the bill.
MS NOW reported that Brinkema reiterated during Friday’s court hearing that Blanche’s recent testimony to Congress, in which she claimed the Justice Department was not making progress with the fund, was not enough to ensure that was the case.
The judge noted that after Mr. Branch’s testimony, Mr. Trump said he wanted to move forward with the fund, which Mr. Brinkema said cast doubt on the Justice Department’s claims.
“We’re thrilled that the court understood that there is harm that needs to be stopped by our planters, and there is harm that needs to be stopped for all Americans,” Pooja Boistedt, senior counsel at the advocacy group Democracy Forward, which is representing the plaintiffs, said after the hearing, according to MS NOW.
Mr. Boistete also said he did not “honestly” believe that Mr. Blanche and Mr. Bessent would submit in writing to abolish the fund.
“I think this tells the court a lot that they have stated that they are terminating the fund and there is no evidence to support that,” she said.
Asked for comment on Friday, the Justice Department reaffirmed that the fund does not exist, as Blanche testified.
CNBC has reached out to the Treasury Department for comment.
Plaintiffs in the case include former federal prosecutor Andrew Floyd, who announced he was fired for prosecuting Trump supporters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.
The other plaintiffs are Jonathan Carabello, a professor at California State University, Channel Islands, and the city of New Haven, Connecticut.
“This ruling is an important victory for the Constitution, the rule of law, and the American people,” Skye Perryman, CEO of Democracy Forward, said in a statement.
“The court recognized the serious legal concerns raised by the Trump-Vance administration’s attempt to create a secret taxpayer-funded compensation program that circumvents constitutional guarantees regulating public spending,” Perryman said.
“Despite the government’s changing narrative about the future of slush funds, the court’s order does not ensure that taxpayer funds will be distributed through this illegal scheme while the court fully considers the significant constitutional issues at issue. We look forward to continuing this challenge on behalf of our clients.”
reply…
also send to ms-courts
