The Department of Justice (DOJ) declined to provide a signed declaration from Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent confirming that President Donald Trump's proposed $1.8 billion 'anti-weaponization fund' is no longer moving forward. The refusal comes after U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema ordered the administration to submit such declarations under penalty of perjury by Friday, June 14, 2026, as a condition for dismissing a lawsuit challenging the fund.
Core Facts and Developments
Judge's Demand: Brinkema, who previously blocked the fund indefinitely, required sworn declarations from Blanche and Bessent to verify the administration would not revive the initiative under any name. She indicated that compliance could lead to the dismissal of the lawsuit.
DOJ's Response: The DOJ argued in a court filing that such declarations are unnecessary and raise separation-of-powers concerns. The department cited prior statements from Blanche, including congressional testimony, where he asserted the fund is 'not going forward, period.' The DOJ also attached Blanche's testimony to the filing.
Deeper Dive and Context
Background on the Fund
The 'anti-weaponization fund' was proposed to compensate alleged victims of prosecutorial overreach during the Biden administration. The DOJ announced the fund in May 2026, but its implementation faced immediate legal challenges. Brinkema initially blocked the plan three weeks ago, citing concerns over its legality and potential misuse.
Legal and Political Implications
Brinkema's demand for declarations under penalty of perjury was framed as a safeguard to ensure the administration's commitment to abandoning the fund. The DOJ countered that verbal assurances and prior court filings should suffice, arguing that compelling senior officials to testify infringes on executive branch authority.
Presidential Contradiction
President Trump's public statements have complicated the matter. After Blanche testified that the fund was abandoned, Trump indicated he still supported its creation, leading Brinkema to question the DOJ's claims. The DOJ's filing noted that all prior statements were made under serious penalties for falsity, implying they were credible.
Next Steps
If the DOJ does not comply, the lawsuit will proceed, and the government must file a responsive pleading by July 17, 2026. The case could set a precedent for judicial oversight of executive branch initiatives, particularly those involving controversial funds or settlements.
Diverse Perspectives
Supporters of the fund argue it would address legitimate grievances from individuals affected by past prosecutorial actions. Critics, including the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, contend the fund lacks transparency and could be misused for political purposes. Legal experts have debated whether Brinkema's demand for declarations is an appropriate exercise of judicial authority or an overreach into executive functions.