Judge temporarily halts DOJ’s $1.7 billion ‘anti-weaponization’ fund, blocking payouts

A federal judge has temporarily blocked the Justice Department from disbursing any money from its newly created $1.7 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” handing an early victory to critics who argue the program amounts to an unconstitutional slush fund.

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema issued a brief order late Thursday freezing all actions related to the fund’s creation or operation, including the transfer of money, consideration of claims, and any payments. The temporary hold is meant to give her time to weigh whether to grant a longer-term injunction sought by a group of plaintiffs — including a former federal prosecutor who worked on Jan. 6 cases and a California professor arrested during an immigration protest — who filed suit last week.

“We should get rid of this political slush fund,” Sen. Chris Van Hollen, a Maryland Democrat, said earlier this month, echoing the criticism that has dogged the program since its announcement.

The fund was established as part of a settlement President Trump reached with the Internal Revenue Service after he sued the agency over the leak of his tax returns by a former government contractor. Under the terms, the Justice Department said it would create a five-member board to hear and redress claims from individuals who say they were victims of “weaponization” of government power — a process the administration says is needed to provide systematic relief.

But the fund has drawn bipartisan backlash on Capitol Hill, particularly from Republicans who worry that people convicted in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol — many of whom received clemency from Trump — could seek payouts. Trump has repeatedly suggested that those defendants were treated unfairly, fueling speculation that the fund could be used to compensate them.

In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs argue that the fund is a “collusive agreement” between Trump and his administration that “has no congressional authorization, no basis in law, and no accountability.” They note that Congress never approved the $1.7 billion expenditure and that the settlement bypassed normal appropriations processes.

The Justice Department has not yet named the five commission members who would set criteria and approve claims. No official announcements about the board’s composition have been made, leaving the program’s future uncertain even before the legal challenge.

At least two other lawsuits have been filed to block the fund — one by two law enforcement officers who clashed with rioters on Jan. 6, and another by government oversight and accountability groups. However, legal experts remain skeptical that any of these challenges will succeed in permanently dismantling the fund, given that settlements typically enjoy wide discretion under federal law.

The temporary restraining order is the first concrete legal setback for the fund since its unveiling earlier this month, and it sets up a potential showdown in the coming weeks over whether the program can survive judicial scrutiny.