The Department of Justice (DOJ) has declared it will not move forward with the controversial “anti-weaponization” fund, a nearly $1.8 billion allocation stemming from a lawsuit settlement involving former President Donald Trump. However, legal challenges against the fund continue to advance in federal courts in Washington and Virginia, as judges evaluate the fund’s legality and the potential risks it poses.
In Virginia, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema issued a temporary block on the DOJ’s implementation of the fund, delaying any action until the court reviews arguments about its legality. The DOJ has committed to adhering to this injunction, which is set to expire soon, even as it remains publicly firm in its decision to halt the fund. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche confirmed during a congressional hearing that the department will not proceed with the fund, though he stopped short of formally rescinding it in writing.
The DOJ’s reluctance to fully revoke the fund in legal terms fuels ongoing disputes. In a recent court filing, the DOJ characterized the case as moot, noting the fund “has not been set up and is now not going forward” and questioning the court’s jurisdiction over the matter. Yet watchdog groups dispute this, highlighting the absence of written cancellation and the continued existence of fund-related charter documents.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), which initiated the legal challenge, warns that the fund’s framework still allows for the potential diversion of taxpayer funds under secrecy. The group argues that without formal dissolution, nearly $1.8 billion could be transferred to a “Designated Account” and disbursed without oversight, violating federal transparency and funding laws.
CREW also points to the May 18 agreement—the settlement of Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS that created the fund—as legally binding. According to the group, the acting attorney general’s public statements do not nullify this agreement, which can only be altered through a written deal between the parties involved. This agreement reportedly includes an addendum granting Trump immunity from IRS audits, a provision that has not been contested in ongoing litigation.
With these lawsuits moving forward despite the DOJ’s apparent retreat, federal courts face the complex task of determining whether the fund’s existence and structure violate constitutional or statutory rules. The outcome will have significant implications for government accountability and the handling of large-scale taxpayer funds linked to politically sensitive settlements.