Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche listens to a reporter’s question during a press conference at the Department of Justice June 11, 2026 in Washington, DC.
Win McNamee | Getty Images
A federal judge in Alexandria, Virginia, on Friday extended her block against the Department of Justice implementing a “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” saying that Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche‘s verbal claim that the fund was not going forward was an insufficient guarantee.
Judge Leonie Brinkema gave Blanche and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent a week to submit written sworn declarations that the fund was not going forward, as Blanche testified to a House panel on June 2, MS NOW reported. Blanche, during that testimony, resisted requests from lawmakers that he put his claim in writing.
Brinkema’s decision to issue a preliminary injunction against the $1.8 billion fund — which could have compensated many allies of President Donald Trump who faced criminal probes and charges — came at the request of plaintiffs who have sued to block it permanently. The judge’s original block on the fund was due to expire on Friday.
Her ruling came two days after a federal judge in the District of Columbia declined a request from the advocacy group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington to issue a temporary restraining order against the fund after a DOJ lawyer said it was not going forward.
But the judge in that case, Richard Leon, sharply warned the DOJ’s lawyer, “Don’t play possum with this court!” Leon indicated he would still consider CREW’s request for a longer-term block against the fund, MS NOW reported Wednesday.
The DOJ on May 18 announced that the fund was being created as part of a settlement of Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service for the leak of his tax records by an IRS contractor.
The fund was meant to compensate people who were purportedly the victims of prosecutorial overreach by the DOJ during the Biden administration. The actual amount of money allocated for the fund was $1.776 billion, a clear reference to the year that the Declaration of Independence was signed.
The fund was harshly criticized by congressional Democrats and some Republicans, particularly because of the possibility that it would be used to pay people who pleaded guilty to crimes related to the riot at the U.S Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, including defendants who assaulted police officers that day.
The DOJ said it would drop the fund after backlash to it from Senate Republicans upended a plan to pass legislation to
Brinkekma, during a court hearing on Friday, repeatedly said that Blanche’s recent testimony to Congress claiming that the DOJ was not going forward with the fund was not sufficient to guarantee that was the case, MS NOW reported.
The judge noted Trump said after Blanche’s testimony that he wanted to move forward with the fund, which Brinkema said raised doubts about the DOJ’s claims.
Pooja Boistute, senior counsel at the advocacy group Democracy Forward, which is representing the plaintiffs, after the hearing said, “We’re thrilled that the court understands that there’s harm to our plantiffs that she needs to stop and there’s harm to the American people as a whole that she needs to stop,” according to MS NOW.
Boistute also said she “honestly” did not believe that Blanche and Bessent will put in writing that the fund is dead.
“I think it will tell …a lot to the court that they have represented that they’re terminating the fund, and there’s no evidence to support that,” she said.
CNBC has requested comment from the DOJ and the Treasury Department on Brinkema’s ruling.
The plaintiffs in the case include Andrew Floyd, a former federal prosecutor said he was fired for prosecuting cases against Trump supporters who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6.
The other plaintiffs are Jonathan Caravello, a professor at California State University Channel Islands, and the city of New Haven, Conn.
“This ruling is a significant victory for the Constitution, the rule of law, and people in America,” said Skye Perryman, CEO of Democracy Forward, in a statement.
“The court recognized the serious legal concerns raised by the Trump-Vance administration’s attempt to create a secretive, taxpayer-funded compensation program operating outside the constitutional safeguards that govern public spending,” Perryman said.
“Despite the administration’s shifting explanations about the future of the slush fund, the court’s order ensures that taxpayer dollars cannot be distributed through this unlawful scheme while the courts fully consider the serious constitutional issues at stake. We look forward to continuing this challenge on behalf of our clients.”
Reply…
Also send to ms-courts
Read the original article here