ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A federal judge in the Eastern District of Virginia issued a preliminary injunction Friday halting the Trump administration’s nearly $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund for one week, giving the government time to sign a “clear, unambiguous” agreement that the fund is dead.
U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema said from the bench the agreement must be signed by acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.
“The balance of harms tips in the favor of the plaintiff,” said Brinkema, a Clinton administration appointee.
Brinkema had already temporarily blocked the fund on May 29 on an emergency basis.
The prospect that the fund would pay Trump’s supporters, including those who assaulted police officers during the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol riot, sparked multiple lawsuits, including the filing in Virginia.
Challengers included a former Department of Justice Jan. 6 prosecutor who was fired last year and a protester at an immigration raid last year who was charged with a felony, and has since been acquitted by a jury. The plaintiffs are represented by the legal advocacy groups Democracy Forward and Common Cause.
The Department of Justice announced the creation of the fund, in the amount of $1.776 billion, on May 18 in exchange for President Donald Trump voluntarily dropping his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS for the leak of his tax returns nearly seven years ago.
Issue not moot, judge says
During a hearing that lasted less than an hour, Brinkema swiftly called Andrew Block, senior counsel to the U.S. associate attorney general, to speak first.
“You’re a brave man, Mr. Block. You’re all by yourself. Frankly, you’re in the hot seat,” Brinkema said, noting that Block was the only representative for the government in the courtroom.
Brinkema kicked off questioning by asking Block if he’d had a chance to find an answer to why Blanche has not formally rescinded the “anti-weaponization” fund in writing.
The question had been posed to Block by U.S. District Judge Richard Leon in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia less than 48 hours ago during a hearing for a separate lawsuit against the fund. Block, who also appeared alone before Leon, told the judge he did not know the reason Blanche had not issued a written order.
“Do you have an answer to that question now?” Brinkema asked.
“Your honor, I don’t. I don’t have the ability to speak to the AG,” he responded.
As he did in federal court June 10, Block argued that Blanche testified publicly before Congress that the administration was not moving forward with the fund, and that Blanche had signed legal briefs on the matter.
Acknowledging those arguments, Leon denied an emergency request to block the fund, saying the case appeared “moot.”
Brinkema, however, said she does not agree with Leon’s assessment.
Doubting whether any of Blanche’s verbal or written statements to stop the fund had been made under penalty of perjury, Brinkema said, “that means the issue, in my view, is not moot.”
Brinkema also cited Trump’s public comments praising the fund, even after Blanche’s declaration it would not move forward.
“When the president of the United States says he’s going to be disappointed if something doesn’t happen, that’s a pretty good indication that it (could) happen,” Brinkema said.
“There are a lot of people out there who think this fund is up and running,” she added.
Block responded: “People may think a lot of things.” He said “what I can tell you” is that no commissioners have been appointed to the fund to establish a claim system.
No lawful business restrained
Block, as he did before Judge Leon, dismissed the plaintiffs’ allegations as “what-ifs,” based on a “loose factual record that is premature.”
Referring to the departments of Justice and Treasury, Brinkema asked, “What injury do they face if the court issues a preliminary injunction at this point?”
Block argued any temporary order to block the fund would mean the government was being “restrained” in conducting business.
“You think this is lawful business? This is a serious issue,” Brinkema said, adding the “only reason this fund exists” is because it’s a settlement in the president’s IRS case, which is “under severe scrutiny.”
U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams, in the Southern District of Florida, has asked for the government’s response by day’s end to a May 27 request from 35 former federal judges to reopen the case. The judges allege the government deceived the court by not sharing all details of the settlement.
Blanche on Capitol Hill
The Department of Justice declined to comment Friday.
The department maintains the fund does not exist, based on Blanche’s June 2 statements before a House Appropriations subcommittee that the department was “not moving forward with the fund, period.”
Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, wrote in a statement the “ruling is a significant victory for the Constitution, the rule of law, and people in America.”
“The court recognized the serious legal concerns raised by the Trump-Vance administration’s attempt to create a secretive, taxpayer-funded compensation program,” she continued. “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.”
