Show summary Hide summary
A federal judge in Virginia has extended an injunction blocking the Trump administration’s planned compensation program for people claiming harm from a “weaponized” government, keeping the program on hold while courts sort through challenges. The decision raises fresh uncertainty about whether the White House will formally abandon the effort and what that means for related lawsuits and government spending.
U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Alexandria said she will keep the Anti-Weaponization Fund frozen indefinitely, rejecting the administration’s contention that the dispute is now moot after Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told Congress the plan was being shelved. Brinkema told lawyers the government has not persuaded her that retreating from the program removes the court’s jurisdiction.
Why the case is unresolved
June 27 horoscopes: what each sign should expect today
Woman shoots tow truck driver after trying to reclaim Lincoln during tow: police
The fund was created by the administration as a mechanism to settle a suit involving former President Trump and the Internal Revenue Service over leaked tax returns. Plaintiffs argue the program would divert taxpayer money into payments that improperly benefit political allies — a claim the government disputes.
Though Justice Department officials say the plan has been abandoned, Brinkema pressed the government to make that position official under oath. She ordered the parties to try to reach an agreement within a week for administration officials, including Blanche, to file a sworn statement affirming the fund will not be revived. Until the court receives that assurance, the injunction will remain in place.
Conflicting rulings in Washington
Not all federal judges have reached the same conclusion. In a separate matter in Washington, D.C., U.S. District Judge Richard Leon accepted the Justice Department’s view that litigation over the fund is moot and denied a request for a temporary block from a government watchdog. The split highlights how different courts are assessing the legal effect of Blanche’s public statements.
Both judges asked a pointed procedural question: why Blanche has not formally rescinded the May 18 order that initially set up the fund. A Justice Department attorney said he could not answer because he lacks direct access to Blanche, leaving a gap in the record that has frustrated judges and plaintiffs alike.
Who is challenging the fund — and what they say
- Plaintiffs include a former prosecutor who lost his job, a college instructor acquitted of charges tied to a protest, the watchdog group Common Cause, the city of New Haven, Conn., and the National Abortion Federation.
- Legal backers — including Democracy Forward — contend that allowing the fund to proceed would inflict irreversible harm by enabling payouts before courts decide whether the program is lawful.
- Government position is that since officials have announced the plan will not move forward, the lawsuits lack an active controversy and should be dismissed as moot.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs told Brinkema a court order preserving the status quo would not injure the government if the administration truly intends to abandon the program. Brinkema agreed that a clear, sworn commitment would reduce the need for ongoing litigation, but she declined to lift the injunction absent that assurance.
Practical status: no payouts, no commission
Officials never formed the five-member commission the plan called for to decide eligibility or distribute funds, and the Justice Department has not accepted claims or issued payments. That procedural inaction is central to the plaintiffs’ argument that a court order freezing the program would be largely symbolic unless the administration takes steps to revive it.
The debate has also touched on politically sensitive questions. At one point, Acting Attorney General Blanche would not rule out whether people involved in violence during the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack could seek compensation, a comment that alarmed many Republicans who oppose rewarding those defendants. President Trump later issued broad pardons for dozens of people charged in the Jan. 6 cases.
With courts in different jurisdictions taking divergent approaches and the Department of Justice slow to commit in writing, the legal battle over the fund looks set to continue. For now, the judge in Virginia has left the program in legal limbo until the administration provides the sworn assurances she has requested — or until further court action.
