The Department of Justice has rejected a federal judge’s demand for a written, sworn declaration that its controversial $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization fund” will not move forward, citing the request as “unnecessary” and raising “separation of powers concerns.” U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema sought formal assurances after deeming prior verbal commitments from Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche insufficient, especially given former President Trump’s public desire for the fund to proceed.
The fund, intended to compensate purported victims of prosecutorial overreach, has sparked bipartisan criticism over fears it could benefit Trump’s allies, including those involved in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.
READ MORE FROM CNBC
The Department of Justice has rebuffed a federal judge's direct request to formally attest in writing that it will not proceed with its contentious "anti-weaponization fund." The DOJ argued in a recent filing that such a written declaration would be "unnecessary" and raised "serious separation of powers concerns."
U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema had previously extended her temporary block on the proposed $1.8 billion fund. This fund was earmarked to compensate individuals who claimed to be victims of prosecutorial overreach during the Biden administration. Judge Brinkema deemed verbal assurances from DOJ leadership insufficient to guarantee the fund's permanent cessation.
Last week, Brinkema demanded sworn declarations from Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent within a week. Her condition for dismissing a lawsuit aimed at permanently blocking the fund was this formal, written commitment.
Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche speaks during a press conference hosted with U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin on unaccompanied minors and prosecuting their sponsors, at the Justice Department, in Washington, D.C., U.S., June 11, 2026.
Evelyn Hockstein | Reuters
DOJ attorney Andrew Block stated in the Friday filing that the Acting Attorney General has already testified before Congress, unequivocally stating the fund is "not going forward, period." Block also noted that DOJ counsel has twice reaffirmed this position in briefs and open court, emphasizing that "All these statements were made against the backdrop of serious penalties for falsity."
However, it's worth noting that Blanche's prior congressional testimony, while firm, was not given under penalty of perjury. This distinction, along with former President Donald Trump's public statements expressing his desire to proceed with the fund, contributed to Judge Brinkema's skepticism and her demand for more concrete assurances.
Later on Friday, the DOJ reinforced its position via a post on X (formerly Twitter). The department reiterated its previous filings and Blanche's testimony, adding, "In essence, the judge's demand for declarations was an attempt to require her to personally sign-off on any and all future settlements, separate from this non-existent Fund, that the department may make. Judges do not get to insert themselves into the department's routine settlement authority."
The DOJ initially announced the creation of this fund in May. It was proposed as part of a settlement related to Donald Trump's $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service concerning the leak of his tax records by an IRS contractor. The plan faced widespread criticism from across the political spectrum due to concerns it could be exploited to compensate Trump's allies, including individuals involved in the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol.
