The U.S. Department of Justice on June 19, 2026, declined a federal judge’s order to submit a sworn declaration confirming that the controversial $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund is officially discontinued. The refusal comes amid ongoing litigation challenging the existence and operation of the fund, which the administration insists it is no longer pursuing.
What Happened
Senior Justice Department lawyers filed a notice in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia refusing U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema’s June 12 request that Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward each submit declarations under penalty of perjury stating that the anti-weaponization fund is “not proceeding in any manner or under any name.” Brinkema had previously issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Justice Department from establishing or operating the fund until the dispute was resolved.
In their response, Justice Department senior counsel Andrew Block argued the declaration was “unnecessary” and raised “serious separation of powers concerns” about compelling testimony from high-level executive officials. Block cited prior testimony from Blanche before Congress, where he stated unequivocally that the fund “is not going forward, period,” and noted similar assertions made in official court filings.
Despite these claims, Brinkema emphasized that none of those statements were made under oath, and warned that the lawsuit filed by a coalition including nonprofit groups Common Cause and the National Abortion Federation, as well as a former federal prosecutor involved in January 6 cases, would proceed if the DOJ did not comply. Plaintiffs argue the lack of a sworn declaration leaves room to suspect the fund might be revived.
Key Facts
The $1.776 billion anti-weaponization fund was conceived as part of a settlement resolving President Trump’s January lawsuit against the IRS regarding leaked tax returns. The fund was intended to address claims from individuals who contend they have been victims of “weaponization and lawfare.”
Republican lawmakers have strongly opposed the fund, especially over concerns that individuals linked to the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack could receive payouts. The program also faced internal opposition after threatening to disrupt GOP immigration priorities in Congress.
Justice Department filings and public testimony assert no appointments have been made to the five-member board that would administer the fund, and thus it has not been operationalized. However, multiple lawsuits challenge the fund’s legality in Washington, D.C., Virginia, and California.
What This Means
The DOJ’s refusal to provide a sworn declaration prolongs uncertainty surrounding the fund’s future and intensifies scrutiny over executive transparency and accountability. From a legal standpoint, it places the judiciary and executive branches at odds over the extent of court authority to compel statements from senior officials, highlighting ongoing separation of powers tensions.
For the public and political stakeholders, this impasse fuels continued skepticism and political friction, especially among Republicans wary that the fund could be used to target conservative figures or January 6 participants. The judge’s insistence on a formal declaration under oath underscores the court’s demand for firm assurances before dismissing the case.
Moreover, this dispute illustrates how politically charged settlements can provoke sustained legal and legislative pushback, potentially influencing broader debates about executive power and congressional oversight.
Background
The anti-weaponization fund was included in a settlement addressing President Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS and relates to allegations of government misuse of authority. Since its announcement, it has faced criticism from Congressional Republicans and multiple legal challenges, reflecting deep partisan divides over government accountability and political retaliation. The Justice Department’s current position reflects an effort to avoid further litigation by asserting the fund is defunct, though without formal sworn affirmation.
What Remains Unclear
It remains uncertain whether Judge Brinkema will accept the DOJ’s refusal and proceed with the litigation. The court has not yet ruled on whether dismissal requests by the DOJ will be granted without the requested sworn statements. Additionally, future decisions on related lawsuits in other jurisdictions could shape the fund’s legal fate.
What Comes Next
The court is expected to consider motions and arguments regarding the DOJ’s refusal and the preliminary injunction in upcoming hearings. Plaintiffs have indicated they will continue pursuing legal action until formal assurances are given. No formal deadlines for potential appeals or further filings were confirmed as of this report.
Sources
This article is based on reporting and publicly available information from the following source:
Read more Politics stories on Goka World News.