The Justice Department on Friday, June 19, refused a federal judge’s order to state, in a sworn written filing, that it has truly abandoned a controversial $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization fund,” calling the demand “unnecessary” and warning that compelling testimony from senior executive-branch officials “implicates serious separation of powers concerns.” The refusal, filed in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, leaves open the possibility that the taxpayer-funded program could be revived and keeps a politically charged standoff between the administration and the courts alive.

The fund was announced in May to compensate people who say they were wrongly targeted by the government — what supporters call victims of “lawfare” — during the Biden administration. It grew out of a legal settlement ending a lawsuit President Donald Trump had filed against the IRS, under which Trump agreed to drop a $10 billion claim against the agency and two related civil claims, worth about $230 million, tied to the Russia investigation and the 2022 search of his Mar-a-Lago home. Critics, including the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, called it a “jaw-dropping act of presidential corruption” and argued it was illegal because Congress never approved the money.

The program quickly became a political problem, even within Trump’s own party. Republicans on Capitol Hill objected, and the dispute threatened to tangle up the GOP’s immigration agenda. Under that pressure, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche announced at a June 2 congressional hearing, “We’re not moving forward with the fund — period.” But he declined to put that promise in writing, telling the panel he was “not committing” to formally abandoning it. Democratic senators including Sheldon Whitehouse and Dick Durbin have framed the plan as a misuse of taxpayer money.

That gap — a verbal promise but no binding document — is what landed the matter before U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema. She had already issued an order indefinitely blocking the fund, said the spoken assurances weren’t enough, and gave Blanche, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward a week to sign sworn statements that the fund was dead. Her doubts grew after Trump, days after Blanche’s testimony, publicly said he still wanted the fund, which the judge pointed to as reason to question the department’s claims.

On Friday, the department said no. In the filing, Justice Department lawyer Andrew Block argued that the Acting Attorney General had already testified the fund was “not going forward, period,” that government counsel had twice signed briefs reaffirming the point in court, and that all those statements were made “against the backdrop of serious penalties for falsity.” Forcing senior officials to swear to it on the judge’s command, the department argued, would cross constitutional lines.

Opponents aren’t satisfied. They note the department has not formally rescinded the May settlement that created the fund, which they argue means it could still proceed or be rebuilt in another form. A separate watchdog suit in Washington, D.C., made the same case; there, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon dismissed the challenge as moot given the government’s repeated promises, but issued a warning to the administration as he did so. A bipartisan group of 35 former federal judges has separately asked a court in Miami to reopen the underlying settlement and review whether it was proper.

A tax thread keeps the fight tied to the IRS. Blanche has said he will not withdraw a memo that bars the IRS from reviewing the past tax returns of Trump, his family and his businesses — a restriction that stays in place regardless of what happens to the fund itself.

For now, the money is frozen and the legal questions are unresolved. The core issue is whether a president can set aside public funds to pay people he believes were wronged by the previous administration, and whether a spoken pledge to drop the idea is enough to satisfy a court. With the department declining to sign on the dotted line, Judge Brinkema will now decide whether the case can be closed or the fight goes on.

JBizNews Desk
© JBizNews.com All Rights Reserved. Reproduction or distribution without written permission is prohibited.