Judge isn’t swayed by government’s claims that plans for an ‘anti-weaponization fund’ are dead

ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A federal judge who blocked the creation of a $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization fund” for compensating President Donald Trump’s political allies wasn’t swayed by a government attorney’s assurances Friday that the administration has abandoned the concept. U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Virginia didn’t rule from the bench on the government’s request for her to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the fund’s formation and operation. But the judge rejected the notion that the case’s claims are moot because the Trump administration says the fund is dead and won’t go forward. “The issues that underlie this case are still alive and kicking, in my view,” Brinkema said. The fund for compensating Trump’s political allies encountered a fierce bipartisan backlash and threatened to derail Attorney General Todd Blanche’s Senate confirmation. On Aug. 2, Blanche issued a formal order terminating the fund after negotiating for weeks with two Republican senators who wanted to see the promise in writing before they endorsed his nomination. “The case is moot,” Justice Department attorney Andrew Block told Brinkema. “The mootness has been addressed at every stage.” But the judge noted that Blanche’s assurances have been undercut by the president and other administration officials. Trump, a Republican, continued to publicly express support for the fund even as Blanche insisted it was dead. “They contradict themselves all the time,” Brinkema said. The administration created the settlement fund to resolve Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax returns. The plan stoked outrage over the notion that Trump supporters who attacked police officers while storming the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, could be eligible for payments. Attorneys from the legal advocacy group Democracy Forward sued in May, asking the Alexandria, Virginia, court to suspend the fund’s implementation temporarily and stop the Trump administration from disbursing any payouts. Plaintiffs’ attorneys argued the government can’t divert taxpayer money to a slush fund for enriching Trump’s allies. Brinkema, who was nominated to the bench by Democratic President Bill Clinton, agreed in June to extend an order blocking the fund until further notice from the court. Democracy Forward attorney Pooja Boisture told the judge on Friday that the administration will most likely move forward with the fund — “either in its current iteration or a new one” — if her order is lifted. The Virginia lawsuit’s plaintiffs include a fired prosecutor and a college professor acquitted of assaulting federal agents at a protest. Also named as plaintiffs are the government watchdog Common Cause; the city of New Haven, Connecticut; and the National Abortion Federation, an association of abortion providers. “This scheme is an unprecedented, unlawful, and corrupt attempt to manipulate the legal process and laws intended to prevent political interference to achieve benefits that President Trump and his political allies could not have obtained lawfully,” the plaintiffs’ attorneys wrote. Justice Department attorneys argue the plaintiffs don’t have a legal basis for claims challenging a fund that “has never existed and will not exist.” “The time has come to stop this inquisition,” they wrote.