The battle over President Donald Trump’s “anti-weaponization” fund is heading to federal court for the first time this week despite the administration’s claims that the fund is dead. Federal judges in both Washington and Virginia are scheduled to hear arguments over bids to block the Department of Justice from taking steps to actualize what critics are calling a “slush fund.”
U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Virginia has already temporarily blocked the DOJ from launching the nearly $1.8 billion fund until she has heard arguments about its legality. The DOJ has acknowledged it intends to comply with that court order, which is set to expire this Friday.
The hearings come as the DOJ has backed off the fund in public statements. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche announced the reversal at a congressional hearing on June 3.
“We’re not moving forward with the fund, period,” Blanche said.
“Not moving forward ever?” pressed Rep. Grace Meng, D-N.Y.
“Correct,” Blanche responded. At the same time, he would not commit to rescinding the fund in writing despite repeated pleas from Meng to do so.
The DOJ is now relying on that testimony as evidence to show the courts the legal challenges are moot. In a court document filed Friday afternoon, the DOJ indicated in writing for the first time that it was not proceeding with the fund.
“This dispute concerns an Anti-Weponization Fund that has not been set up and is now not going forward,” wrote Andrew Block, a DOJ attorney. He also argued the case is “not justiciable,” meaning it is not a matter the federal court has jurisdiction to decide.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, the nonprofit watchdog group that brought this Washington-based challenge, is not satisfied with the department’s apparent cancellation of the fund. Responding to the government’s filing, the group argued the DOJ has provided no evidence that it is actually backtracking and pointed to its refusal to rescind the fund in writing.
“So long as the Fund’s charter documents remain in effect, nothing stops [the Trump administration] from illegally siphoning, at any given moment, nearly $1.8 billion in taxpayer dollars from the Treasury’s Judgement Fund to an unidentified ‘Designated Account’ and rapidly disbursing those funds to whomever they want under a shroud of secrecy, in violation of the Constitution and multiple federal transparency and funding statutes,” CREW lawyers wrote.
They maintained Blanche’s comments are not legally binding, saying, “The Acting Attorney General’s remarks had no legal effect whatsoever on the May 18 Agreement, which by its terms can be modified ‘only by written agreement of the Parties.’” (The May 18 agreement refers to the settlement of Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS, which created this “anti-weaponization” fund. That agreement also had an addendum that purports to give Trump immunity from IRS audits, and that addendum has not been challenged in any of these lawsuits.)
Recommended
In a D.C. District Court on Wednesday afternoon, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon will weigh the fund’s future in the case brought by CREW, even as the fund remains blocked by Brinkema’s order in the Virginia-based challenge.
Across the Potomac in Alexandria, Virginia, the plaintiffs who brought that challenge, a coalition of former Jan. 6 prosecutors and nonprofit organizations, are asking the judge for more time to gather information about the fund before they argue over its future.
The coalition wants the DOJ to clarify its public statements, including those Blanche made to Congress, about its intentions for the fund. They are also seeking further substantiation from the DOJ beyond the those comments that it is actually being scrapped.
They specifically highlighted Trump’s continued public defense of the fund in various interviews conducted after Blanche’s congressional testimony. In a pretaped interview with “Meet the Press” that aired June 7, Trump said, “I think the weaponization fund is a great idea, and so do many other Republicans. You have to get it approved.”
Brinkema is still weighing the request for more information, and the hearing remains set for Friday morning.
These legal battles are playing out as another brews in the background. U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams, who was overseeing the Trump lawsuit against the IRS that ultimately yielded the settlement agreement, has ordered additional briefing after having initially dismissed the case. That order stemmed from a request to reopen the case filed by 35 former federal judges, who argued the settlement “is a product of collusion and itself a fraud on the court.”
Williams requested Trump respond to allegations of collusion by Friday and address specifically whether the dismissal was premised on deception and whether she should reopen the case because she was a “victim of a fraud.”
These are just a few of the cases actively challenging Trump’s nearly $1.8 billion fund, which seeks to compensate individuals who allege they have been politically targeted or victimized by the DOJ. With the initial legal tests this week, the key question is how these judges will respond. Will they accept the DOJ at its word and dismiss the cases, or will they insist on a more formal binding order to prevent the DOJ from ever following through with this fund? At this point, its fate — and this latest test of executive authority — lies with the judiciary.