U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia has placed a temporary block on President Donald Trump's administration's plan to establish a nearly $1.8 billion fund. The fund, dubbed the "Anti-Weaponization Fund," was announced as part of a settlement in a lawsuit filed by Trump against the Internal Revenue Service concerning the leak of his tax records. The judge's order prohibits the administration from taking any further steps to create or operate the fund until further legal arguments are heard, with the injunction remaining in effect at least until June 12.

The Justice Department had unveiled the fund, a sum of $1.776 billion, to be managed by a five-member commission. Its stated purpose was to provide payments to individuals who could demonstrate they were victims of "lawfare" and "weaponization," terms frequently used by Trump and his supporters to describe legal and criminal proceedings against them.

The ruling stems from a lawsuit initiated by a group claiming to have been targeted by the "Trump-Vance administration" as political adversaries. This group argued they would be excluded from any potential payouts from the fund. Skye Perryman, the head of Democracy Forward, the anti-Trump organization behind the lawsuit, hailed the decision as a "victory for transparency, the rule of law, and the American people," asserting that "No administration has the authority to spend public money through a political rewards program."

Conversely, a Justice Department spokesperson expressed strong confidence in the fund's legality, noting that Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche had stated there were no partisan criteria for eligibility. The spokesperson added, "We will not allow the policy preferences of judges to interfere with our efforts to provide restitution to victims of lawfare."

The proposed fund had already generated significant backlash, including from some Republican lawmakers, who raised concerns that individuals involved in the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol might receive taxpayer-funded compensation. Critics widely condemned the initiative as a "slush fund" designed to reward Trump's political allies.

Democracy Forward's legal challenge is one of at least three lawsuits aiming to prevent the fund's establishment. Judge Brinkema emphasized the necessity of the temporary order to preserve the status quo and prevent funds from being "irreversibly disbursed" before the court could fully evaluate the plaintiffs' request for a more permanent injunction.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit include a former Department of Justice prosecutor involved in prosecuting January 6 rioters and a California professor who was arrested during a protest against an immigration raid. Their legal team argued that government lawyers had assured them no money had yet been transferred to the fund but refused to provide more than 24 hours' notice before any potential transfer. The plaintiffs deemed this insufficient, fearing it could allow the fund to become operational before its legality could be determined.

As of the ruling, the Justice Department had not yet named the five commissioners who are to be appointed by the Acting Attorney General. The department had previously indicated plans to transfer money into the fund within 60 days of its May 18 announcement.