Judge Blocks Trump’s $1.776 Billion Anti-Weaponization Fund Payouts
A federal judge on Friday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from proceeding with its $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” delivering a significant legal setback to a program designed to compensate individuals who claim they were targeted by the previous administration’s law enforcement actions.
U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, sitting in Alexandria, Virginia, issued a temporary restraining order barring the government from transferring money to the fund, considering any claims, or disbursing any funds while litigation is pending, according to AP News. A hearing has been scheduled for June 12 to determine whether the order should be extended.
What the Fund Was Meant to Do
The Anti-Weaponization Fund was created as part of a settlement to resolve President Donald Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns. The money was to be drawn from the federal judgment fund, which typically pays out court-ordered judgments and settlements against the government. The fund is set to expire in December 2028, shortly before the end of Trump’s second term.
A five-member commission appointed by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche was to oversee the fund, with one member chosen in consultation with congressional leadership. However, the commission had not yet been formed, meaning no money had been paid out or claims formally accepted before the judge’s order.
Multiple Legal Challenges
The Virginia lawsuit was filed by Democracy Forward on behalf of several plaintiffs, including Andrew Floyd, a former federal prosecutor who handled Jan. 6 cases before being fired by then-Attorney General Pam Bondi, and Jonathan Caravello, a California professor acquitted of assaulting federal agents at a protest. The suit argues that the fund lacks legal authorization and accountability.
“The unlawfulness that has imbued the Anti-Weaponization Fund from its inception requires that it be wholly dismantled,” the plaintiffs’ court filing states.
At least two other lawsuits are challenging the fund. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed a separate suit in Washington, D.C., calling the fund “a jaw-dropping act of presidential corruption,” according to AP News. Two police officers who defended the Capitol on Jan. 6 have also sued to block payouts.
Bipartisan Backlash
The fund has drawn criticism from both Democrats and Republicans. Senate Republican leaders last week postponed a vote on a GOP border security package in part because of concerns over the fund. Sen. Elizabeth Warren called the fund “corruption on steroids,” while Rep. Jamie Raskin described it as a “slush fund” for Trump allies.
During a congressional hearing on May 27, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche would not rule out the possibility that Jan. 6 rioters who assaulted police could be eligible for fund payouts, as reported by NBC News. Nearly 1,600 people were charged with Capitol riot-related federal crimes, and over 1,200 were convicted before Trump issued mass pardons.
The Judge’s Reasoning
Judge Brinkema, a Clinton appointee, said the temporary restraining order was necessary to “ensure that no funds are irreversibly disbursed” while the court considers the plaintiffs’ motions. Her order prohibits the administration from operating or creating the fund in any capacity while litigation is ongoing.
Skye Perryman, President and CEO of Democracy Forward, called the ruling “a victory for transparency, the rule of law, and the American people,” telling NBC News that “no administration has the authority to spend public money through a political rewards program that Congress never authorized.”
The Administration’s Response
The Justice Department expressed confidence in its legal position. “The Department remains extremely confident in the legality of the Anti-Weaponization Fund which is supported by ample precedent, including Obama-era settlements,” a DOJ spokesperson said. “We will not allow the policy preferences of judges to interfere with our efforts to provide restitution to victims of lawfare.”
What’s Next
The June 12 hearing will determine whether the temporary restraining order is extended into a preliminary injunction that could block the fund for the duration of the legal proceedings. Appeals are likely regardless of the outcome. Congress may also pursue legislation to defund or restrict the fund, and the controversy is expected to feature prominently in the 2026 midterm election campaigns.
The fund represents an unprecedented mechanism for a president to direct taxpayer money to political allies, raising fundamental questions about executive power, congressional authorization, and the limits of settlement authority that courts will now have to resolve.