DOJ confirms in court papers the "anti-weaponization fund" isn't going forward, asks judges to reject lawsuits

Washington — The Justice Department on Friday urged a pair of federal judges to reject efforts to block its $1.7 billion "anti-weaponization fund," arguing that the cases challenging the program are moot because of Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche's assertions that the fund is not going forward.

The Justice Department's filings Friday appear to be the first time the Trump administration has indicated in writing that the anti-weaponization fund will not continue.

In two filings with federal courts in Alexandria, Virginia, and Washington, D.C., senior officials with the Justice Department wrote that two sets of plaintiffs challenging the fund do not have the legal right to sue, and said there is no longer a live issue before the courts.

"This dispute concerns an Anti-Weaponization Fund that had not been set up and is now not going forward. As a result, Plaintiffs' claims are not justiciable," the Justice Department wrote in both filings, which were signed by Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward and Andrew Block, his senior counsel.

They went on to argue that if the court were to accept the plaintiffs' arguments, "the court would effectively unwind a preferable political resolution."

The Washington, D.C., case was filed by a government watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. The Virginia case was brought by several plaintiffs, including a former prosecutor who worked on cases stemming from the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Last week, in response to the Virginia lawsuit, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema temporarily blocked the Justice Department from moving forward with the fund "to ensure that no funds are irreversibly disbursed" from it while she weighs whether to issue longer-term relief sought by the plaintiffs.

The Justice Department's Friday filings ask Brinkema to reject the plaintiffs' requests for a longer-term block on the anti-weaponization fund.

They argued that the plaintiffs are asking the court "to have the last word in a political debate."

"The equities and the public interest do not favor this Court interjecting itself in a political process to shut down a Fund that is already not going forward," Justice Department lawyers wrote in both of the filings. "The Fund has been the subject of vigorous public debate. That process may seem messy. But the push-and-pull of such debate is a feature of our constitutional republic."

While the claims raised by each set of plaintiffs are different, the Justice Department argued that neither are likely to succeed on the merits of their arguments.

Blanche told a House committee Tuesday that the Justice Department is "not moving forward" with the program. But at the time, Blanche refused to commit that promise to writing, raising skepticism from some lawmakers as to whether the anti-weaponization fund could be resurrected.

President Trump has also continued to defend the program, calling it a "beautiful thing" on Wednesday.

The program was rolled out as part of a deal to settle Mr. Trump's civil lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns by a government contractor. Under the terms of the agreement, the fund would receive $1.7 billion, which would be used to provide awards to people who were the victims of "lawfare and weaponization."

But the potential for those involved in the Jan. 6 assault to receive payouts led to immense pushback against the fund from Republican and Democratic lawmakers. That opposition threatened to derail Republicans' $70 billion legislative package to fund certain immigration agencies, but the Senate approved the plan early Friday morning without imposing any guardrails on the fund.

Blanche told lawmakers earlier this week that other parts of the Trump-IRS settlement remain in place, including a provision that permanently bars the IRS from taking action against Mr. Trump or his company based on prior tax returns.