Judge extends block on Trump’s $1.8 billion 'Anti-Weaponization Fund'

A federal judge in Alexandria, Virginia, has extended a block on the Trump administration’s $1.8 billion settlement fund known as the “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” keeping the money frozen while the fight over the program continues.

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema ruled Friday that the government had not shown a formal rescission of the fund’s creation, rejecting the Justice Department’s argument that the case was moot because the administration had decided to scrap it. The injunction remains in place until further notice.

The dispute centers on a settlement fund created to compensate people who claimed they were harmed by what the administration described as government weaponization. No payouts had been made, and the commission that was supposed to oversee the fund had not been formed.

What Brinkema ruled

Brinkema had previously entered a temporary block that was set to expire on June 12. At the hearing, she extended that restraint after concluding the record did not contain the kind of formal cancellation that would end the dispute.

According to the reporting, the judge did not accept the administration’s argument that later statements were enough to make the lawsuit disappear. Her decision kept the injunction in place and preserved the plaintiffs’ challenge for now.

Brinkema also gave the parties about a week to try to reach an agreement. She sought a sworn declaration from Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche stating that the fund will not be revived.

How the fight developed

The fund was created in connection with a settlement tied to litigation over the leak of Donald Trump’s tax records. The administration framed the money as compensation for people harmed by alleged government overreach.

Critics, and the plaintiffs in the case, have argued that the arrangement would divert taxpayer money into what they view as an unlawful payout scheme. They say the government cannot simply announce that it is moving on without formally ending the program.

Acting Attorney General Blanche told Congress earlier in June that the administration was scrapping the fund. But Brinkema concluded that testimony was not the same as a formal rescission of the underlying order that created it.

Who is involved

The plaintiffs include a fired prosecutor and a professor who was acquitted of assaulting federal agents at a protest. They are represented by Democracy Forward.

The defendants include the Justice Department and the Trump administration, which has argued the case should end because the plan is being abandoned.

Trump has not publicly and unequivocally disavowed the fund, according to the reporting. That uncertainty has become part of the broader dispute over whether the administration could try to revive or repackage the payout plan later.

Why the ruling matters

The ruling keeps $1.8 billion in settlement money blocked from being distributed.

It also tests whether the administration can make the case go away without a formal written cancellation of the fund. Brinkema’s order suggests the court wants something more concrete than testimony or public assurances before lifting the block.

That leaves the injunction with practical force: the government cannot move ahead with payouts while the order remains in effect.

The case also affects whether the government can revive or repackage the plan if it decides not to abandon it fully. Plaintiffs say that risk is one reason a formal rescission matters.

What happens next

Brinkema gave the sides roughly a week to see whether they can reach an agreement that resolves the dispute.

If the administration submits the sworn declaration the judge requested, that could affect the next phase of the litigation. If it formally rescinds the program, the case could shift again.

If neither happens, the court may revisit the injunction and decide whether the fund remains unlawful.

For now, the result is straightforward: the $1.8 billion remains frozen, the administration has not secured dismissal on mootness grounds, and the future of the Anti-Weaponization Fund is still unresolved.