The Justice Department filed a striking legal brief Friday arguing that a federal court should not block the Trump administration's $1.8 billion "anti-weaponization" fund, even as it acknowledged the initiative will not move forward. The position puts DOJ in the unusual posture of defending a program it says is dead.
In its filing before U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema in Virginia, Justice Department attorney Andrew Block and colleagues wrote that the case is "simultaneously moot and premature." They contended that because no money has been transferred, no board members appointed, and no claims processed, the plaintiffs who sued lack legal standing to challenge the fund's existence.
"No Members were appointed. No claims procedures were established. No claims were formally submitted, received, adjudicated, granted, or denied," the DOJ stated. The department added it opposes the court's intervention "to protect the government's institutional interests in the proper application of Article III limitations on judicial review."
The fund was designed to compensate people alleging they "suffered weaponization and lawfare," language that emerged last month as part of a settlement tied to a lawsuit Trump filed against the government he heads. The case included his sons Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump and their company as co-plaintiffs.
The Trump administration has sent conflicting signals about the fund's fate. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told Congress this week the Justice Department was "not moving forward with the fund, period." Yet Trump told reporters the initiative was "a beautiful thing" and expressed uncertainty about whether it was dead or merely paused.
The ambiguity matters. Judge Brinkema temporarily halted any DOJ action on the fund after former Jan. 6 prosecutor Andrew Floyd and others sued. She scheduled a hearing for June 12 to consider a longer-term injunction. At least four additional lawsuits seek to block the fund, including one filed by Capitol police officers who called it a "slush fund" for "insurrectionists."
Even if the $1.8 billion account never opens, the Trump administration has an alternative pathway for payouts. The Judgment Fund, a longstanding federal mechanism for settling claims against the U.S., can dispense unlimited taxpayer money to anyone with a valid legal claim. Hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants have already filed claims or lawsuits seeking compensation through that avenue.
Stacey Young, founder of Justice Connection, a group supporting Justice Department employees, warned that the administration's public retreat masks a deeper strategy. "Todd Blanche is pulling a bait and switch, telling lawmakers the anti-weaponization fund is dead while plotting other ways to pay Jan. 6 rioters," Young said. "The Judgment Fund is taxpayer money. Any money dispersed through that fund must adhere to the statute and be accountable to the taxpayer."
The DOJ responded that the Judgment Fund "has always been available to anyone." That prospect has triggered concern among Trump opponents. Claire Douglass, a spokesperson for Manifest America, said her husband lost time from work serving on a federal jury in a Jan. 6 case, only to see the defendant later pardoned by Trump. She suggested D.C. taxpayers should receive $2.3 billion in compensation for losses tied to the Capitol riot prosecutions.
The Trump administration's legal position creates a paradox. By fighting to keep the fund open in principle even while claiming it will never launch, DOJ preserves the option to resurrect it if political winds shift. Blanche, whom Trump has nominated to serve as attorney general, appears to have chosen a path that appeases Congress with assurances the fund is finished while preventing courts from locking the door permanently.
Author Sarah Mitchell: "The DOJ's move to have it both ways, simultaneous moot and live, is a clever legal maneuver that keeps a politically radioactive fund alive on paper while pretending it's dead in practice."
Comments