Key facts
- The Justice Department refused a federal judge's demand for sworn assurances regarding a $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund.
- The fund was proposed to compensate individuals claiming to have suffered "weaponization and lawfare" by the federal government.
- Judge Leonie Brinkema had ordered senior officials to declare under oath that the fund would not proceed.
- The DOJ cited "serious separation of powers concerns" as its reason for declining the sworn declarations.
- The administration had previously announced the fund was "not moving forward" following criticism.
The Justice Department has refused a federal judge's demand for sworn assurances that a proposed $1.8 billion fund, intended for alleged victims of political "weaponization," will not move forward. Judge Leonie Brinkema had set a deadline for acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward to declare under penalty of perjury that the fund is defunct.
DOJ attorneys, including Andrew Block, argued that compelling such declarations from senior Executive Branch officials raises "serious separation of powers concerns." They asserted that previous statements made by the administration, indicating the fund was "not moving forward, ever," should suffice and that sworn testimony is unnecessary for the court's mootness analysis.
Democracy Forward, representing the plaintiffs, criticized the Justice Department's stance, calling their refusal to provide sworn statements "telling." The organization questioned why senior officials continue to avoid confirming the fund's demise under oath. The administration had announced plans for the compensation fund in May following a settlement between the Trump family and the IRS, but faced backlash over potential beneficiaries, leading to its stated withdrawal.