A federal judge expressed concerns Friday about the possibility that the Trump administration might revive a discontinued $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” designed to compensate individuals who the administration viewed as having been wronged by the justice system. The fund, originally announced in the spring, faced immediate legal challenges over allegations it was an unconstitutional mechanism intended to reward President Donald Trump’s supporters, including those pardoned for actions related to blocking access to abortion clinics and involvement in the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema, presiding in Alexandria, Virginia, previously blocked the fund’s implementation with an injunction and indicated at a hearing that she was not inclined to dismiss the ongoing lawsuit despite the Justice Department’s request. The Justice Department maintains the case is moot following Attorney General Todd Blanche’s formal termination of the fund last month, a move underscored in written orders and congressional testimony. Justice Department attorney Andrew Block said the fund would not proceed, emphasizing, “The Anti-Weaponization Fund is not happening.”
However, attorneys representing the plaintiffs, including the Democracy Forward Foundation, contend that Blanche’s statements do not rule out the fund’s potential revival. Pooja Boisture, a lawyer for the foundation, argued that the administration might seek to resume payments once the injunction is lifted. Judge Brinkema echoed this apprehension, questioning whether a “functional equivalent” of the fund might still be operating despite the official termination.
Brinkema highlighted related ongoing claims for compensation filed by individuals pardoned by Trump and others convicted in connection with the Capitol attack. She noted that the Thomas More Society represents numerous former abortion clinic protesters seeking monetary awards, and that many January 6 defendants have also pursued compensation under the Federal Tort Claims Act in courts in Washington, D.C. The judge remarked on the administration’s current opposition to those claims but acknowledged the possibility of a policy reversal.
The lawsuit raises constitutional concerns over potential First Amendment violations, specifically regarding government discrimination based on political viewpoints, and issues involving the equal-protection clause. Brinkema criticized internal contradictions within the administration, stating that officials had publicly contradicted Blanche’s written orders. “They contradict themselves all the time,” she said. “Actions speak louder than words.”
Attorney General Blanche, speaking shortly after ending the fund, affirmed the administration’s position that certain individuals were victims of a weaponized Department of Justice, a viewpoint shared by President Trump. Nonetheless, Blanche emphasized that compensation would not be issued through the blocked fund, which was never formally established.
The fund’s creation was part of a deal tied to the dropping of a $10 billion lawsuit filed by Trump against the IRS over a 2019 leak of his tax information. The administration agreed to establish a nearly $1.8 billion fund granting broad authority to distribute payments.
The legal process has also involved disputes over the identification of government officials responsible for developing the fund’s structure. While the Justice Department has identified officials including Attorney General Blanche, acting Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter, Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, and IRS head Frank Bisignano as participants, plaintiffs’ attorneys have sought broader discovery, including depositions of high-ranking officials. Judge Brinkema acknowledged the sensitivity of these requests but did not issue a ruling on them during the hearing.
She indicated a written decision on the Justice Department’s dismissal request would follow, signaling that at least some elements of the case remain active and subject to further judicial review.