A federal judge on Wednesday, June 10, refused to block the Trump administration’s “anti-weaponization fund,” but warned the Justice Department against treating the case as inactive after officials said the program would not move forward.
U.S. District Judge Richard Leon declined to grant a temporary restraining order sought by watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).
CREW Sought Immediate Court Order to Stop $1.776B Program
The group had asked the court to immediately halt the fund, which was announced last month as part of a settlement linked to a lawsuit President Donald Trump filed against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns.
The $1.776 billion fund was designed to compensate people who alleged they were victims of government misconduct. But it was instantly greeted with political criticism, opponents calling it a “slush fund” to aid Trump allies.
During Wednesday’s hearing, the Justice Department argued the case should be dismissed because Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has already stated that the fund is not moving forward.
The government said there is no active program, no appointed board, and no distribution of funds.
Blanche testified last week before Congress that the Justice Department is not proceeding with the initiative, following mounting pressure from lawmakers and a separate court ruling that temporarily blocked related actions.
Also Read: Court Filing Reveals DOJ Move to End Trump’s $1.7 Billion Anti-Weaponization Fund Case
Because of those statements, the administration argued that the lawsuits challenging the fund were now moot and should not proceed in court.
Judge Leon rejected the request for an emergency block, saying he was not convinced there was a live dispute requiring immediate court intervention. He said the government’s representations suggested the fund was effectively inactive.
Leon Warns DOJ: ‘Don’t Play Possum With the Court’
At the same time, the judge expressed concern about the Justice Department’s position in the case and issued a pointed warning during the hearing.
“Don’t play possum with this court,” Leon said, cautioning the government against appearing to shut down the fund informally while leaving the underlying policy structure intact.
The judge did not issue a final ruling on a separate request for a preliminary injunction, which remains under consideration.
Lawyers for CREW argued that the fund has not been formally withdrawn in writing and remains legally active on paper.
Nikhel Sus, representing the group, said any changes to the program require a formal rescission and cannot rely solely on public statements or testimony.
“This is highly unusual,” Sus said during the hearing, referring to the government’s handling of the matter.
He also argued that Acting Attorney General Blanche’s statement to Congress does not amount to a legally binding termination of the program. According to the plaintiffs, the fund’s charter remains in place and has not been officially repealed.
Also Read: Trump’s DOJ Scraps $1.776B Anti-weaponization Fund
Government attorney Andrew Block defended the administration’s position, saying the case should be dismissed because there is no active implementation of the fund.
He told the court that no board members have been appointed, no procedures have been created, and no claims have been processed.
“All I know is that the acting attorney general has said the fund is not moving forward,” Block said.
The Justice Department also argued that the case is not ripe for judicial review and that plaintiffs lack standing because no money has been distributed and no harm has occurred.
At one point, Judge Leon questioned why the government had not formally rescinded the policy in writing if it was truly defunct.
Case Part of Major Battle Over “Weaponization” Claims in Washington
The court also noted uncertainty about the program’s status, including whether political considerations were influencing the handling of the matter.
CREW’s lawsuit is one of several litigation efforts targeting the anti-weaponization fund, which has become a source of political dispute in Washington.
Democrats and a section of the Republicans argue the initiative lacks transparency and could direct government funds toward politically connected claims.
Trump’s allies and White House officials say the fund was created to address alleged past government misconduct and provide a pathway for compensation in specific cases.
The judge said he will issue a separate ruling on the request for a preliminary injunction at a later date.
Follow our WhatsApp Channel and X Account for real-time news updates.
