A federal judge extended a court order blocking the Trump administration's $1.8 billion settlement fund on Friday, rejecting assurances from the government that the program would be scrapped and demanding stronger legal guarantees before it can proceed.
The fund was created to compensate people the administration claims suffered from government weaponization. It emerged from Trump's lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the disclosure of his tax returns.
Acting US Attorney General Todd Blanche announced earlier this month that the administration would abandon the initiative in response to bipartisan opposition in Congress. Government lawyers subsequently argued that lawsuits challenging the fund had become pointless since cancellation was underway.
But plaintiffs challenging the fund rejected that logic. Their attorneys remained unconvinced by Blanche's statement alone, particularly given Trump's public silence on the matter. The former president has not explicitly endorsed killing the program.
US District Judge Leonie Brinkema sided with the skeptics. Rather than accept the government's word, she ordered the fund to remain blocked indefinitely pending a formal agreement. She gave both sides one week to negotiate language for an official sworn declaration from Blanche committing the administration to abandonment of the fund.
Brinkema had previously imposed a temporary two-week freeze on the fund in late May. Friday's order simply extends that hold while legal proceedings continue.
Plaintiffs suing to halt the fund argue it amounts to an illegal diversion of taxpayer money into what they characterize as a slush fund designed to reward Trump allies and supporters. The legal challenge hinges on whether the administration has statutory authority to create such a settlement program outside normal appropriations processes.
The standoff highlights the tension between the administration's stated desire to abandon the initiative and Trump's reluctance to explicitly confirm it. That gap has given federal courts reason to maintain tight oversight rather than accept government representations at face value.
Author James Rodriguez: "Blanche's promise in congressional testimony apparently wasn't enough assurance for the judge, and that tells you all you need to know about the credibility gap here."
Comments