Federal Judge Freezes Trump's $1.776 Billion Anti-Weaponization Fund

A federal judge in Virginia has temporarily halted the operation of the Justice Department's newly created $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund while a lawsuit challenging the program's legality moves forward in court.

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema issued the order on May 29, barring federal officials from transferring money into the fund, reviewing claims submitted to it, or distributing payments until the court resolves a pending request for emergency relief. The judge stated that preserving the status quo was important while the litigation proceeds.

The lawsuit was filed by former federal prosecutor Andrew Floyd, California professor Jonathan Caravello, the City of New Haven, the National Abortion Federation, and government watchdog group Common Cause against the Department of Justice, the Department of the Treasury, and other federal officials. The challengers argue the fund was created in violation of multiple constitutional and federal law requirements.

The Anti-Weaponization Fund was created as part of a settlement agreement that resolved President Donald Trump's lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the disclosure of his tax information, the lawsuit states. The fund is intended to compensate people who claim they were harmed by what the agreement describes as government "lawfare" or "weaponization."

Court filings state that the Anti-Weaponization Fund would be financed through a $1.776 billion payment from the federal Judgment Fund, a permanent source of federal money used to satisfy certain legal obligations of the United States. The challengers argue the account was intended to resolve specific claims against the government, not to create a new program that could distribute payments to future applicants.

Under the agreement, the Anti-Weaponization Fund would have authority to review claims, award compensation, issue formal apologies, and establish its own procedures for handling applications. Court filings further claim that the identities of claimants and the amounts paid would not be publicly disclosed.

A separate challenge centers on how the fund was created and funded. The lawsuit argues that Congress controls federal spending and decides how taxpayer money may be used. Court filings contend that the executive branch cannot create a new government compensation system and direct billions of dollars into it unless Congress has authorized it.

The challengers also maintain that federal agencies must follow established procedures when creating major programs. The complaint claims the government bypassed transparency and procedural requirements that normally apply when agencies adopt significant new policies.

Eligibility for the fund is another major point of dispute in the case. According to the filings, people who claim they were targeted by Democratic officials may seek compensation through the program, while those alleging similar conduct by Republican officials may not.

Much of the constitutional challenge focuses on that aspect of the fund. The challengers contend similarly situated claimants are treated differently based on the political affiliation of the officials involved. Federal courts generally prohibit the government from distributing benefits based on political viewpoint, and the complaint argues the fund crosses that line by making payments available to one category of claimants while excluding others who allege similar forms of political targeting.

Judge Brinkema denied the challengers' request for an accelerated briefing schedule but granted the government's request for additional time to respond. Federal officials must file their opposition by June 5, the challengers may reply by June 10, and a hearing on the request for emergency relief is scheduled for June 12.