The Trump administration told a federal judge in Alexandria, Virginia, on Friday that it will not submit sworn declarations from three senior officials confirming the $1.776 billion "anti-weaponization" fund has been permanently shelved, calling the court's demand "unnecessary" and raising separation-of-powers concerns. The move sets up a direct confrontation with U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, who had given the administration one week to file the declarations or face continued litigation.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward were the three officials Judge Brinkema asked to sign declarations under penalty of perjury stating the program would not proceed "in any manner, or under any name." Instead of complying, senior DOJ counsel Andrew Block filed a notice declining to provide the declarations and arguing that the court had no business compelling testimony from executive branch officials.
The refusal leaves the fund's legal status in limbo, and hands the administration's progressive opponents exactly the talking point they wanted.
Block's notice did not hold back about the administration's position. He wrote that the court's demand was:
"unnecessary and the compelled testimony of senior officials from the Executive Branch implicates serious separation of powers concerns."
The filing went further, arguing that Blanche had already made the administration's position clear in congressional testimony, telling a House committee the fund is "not going forward, period." Block contended that forcing the same officials to repeat themselves under oath added nothing of legal substance.
"Accordingly, the Court's demands are unnecessary. And its presumption that mootness can arise only by compelling testimony from three senior government officials 'implicate[s] separation of powers concerns.' As stated multiple times, the Fund is not moving forward."
The DOJ has made the same argument in at least two separate legal challenges, in Virginia and elsewhere, asserting that the program "had not been set up and is now not going forward" and that the cases should be dismissed as moot. The department also noted that none of the five members who would establish and administer the fund had been appointed.
Judge Brinkema's skepticism did not materialize from thin air. The fund was created as part of a settlement of President Trump's civil lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax returns by a former government contractor. The $1.776 billion program, according to DOJ filings, aimed to "provide a systematic process to hear and redress claims of others who suffered weaponization and lawfare."
The problem, from the court's perspective, is straightforward: the administration says the fund is dead, but it has not formally rescinded the settlement agreement or departmental directives that created it. Fox News reported that Trump himself told "Meet the Press" he would like to continue with the fund, saying, "If it was up to me, I'd pay them the kind of money that they deserve. People have been destroyed. Lives have been destroyed."
That kind of public statement from the president makes a judge reluctant to accept verbal assurances from subordinates. Brinkema had already granted a preliminary injunction blocking the DOJ from taking any action to create or operate the program, and she warned that if the administration declined to file the declarations, the lawsuit would move forward.
The administration's refusal means the case almost certainly continues, and the injunction stays in place.
The DOJ's constitutional claim deserves a fair hearing. Courts do not routinely compel Cabinet-level officials to submit sworn declarations as a condition for dismissing litigation. The executive branch has legitimate institutional interests in resisting that kind of judicial demand, and the principle extends well beyond this particular fund.
If a federal judge can require the attorney general and the treasury secretary to sign personal affidavits every time the government says a program has been abandoned, the precedent cuts in uncomfortable directions, including against future administrations of either party. Block's filing, whatever one thinks of the underlying fund, raises a real structural concern.
But the argument loses force when the administration's own public statements create ambiguity. Blanche told Congress the fund is done. Trump told a national television audience he wishes it weren't. Those two positions are not easily reconciled, and a judge sitting in equity has every reason to demand clarity before dissolving an injunction. The administration's pattern of resisting judicial demands for sworn compliance on this fund only deepens the court's suspicion.
Democracy Forward, the progressive legal group representing the plaintiffs, a coalition that includes a former federal prosecutor who worked on January 6 cases, the city of New Haven, Connecticut, Common Cause, and the National Abortion Federation, wasted no time framing the refusal as an admission. Skye Perryman, the group's president and CEO, issued a statement:
"It is telling that even after the federal court gave them a week, the Acting Attorney General and other senior administration officials continue to refuse to say under oath that the Slush Fund is dead and won't operate in the future. Nor have they provided any information under oath about their compliance with the court's prior directives."
That framing is predictable, but it lands because the administration handed it to them. When you tell a judge and Congress that a program is finished but refuse to say so under oath, you give your opponents a clean talking point and your allies nothing to work with.
Congressional Democrats have pushed the same line. Just The News reported that Rep. Don Beyer of Virginia said, "You don't get credit for complying with a temporary court order. Trump's scheme to rob American taxpayers won't be dead until Congress bans it." Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer added, "If Trump and Republicans are truly abandoning this corrupt scheme, they should have zero problem banning it in law."
The fund had already created headaches on the right. Republicans on Capitol Hill raised concerns that people involved in the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol could receive payouts, and the controversy threatened to derail the GOP's immigration agenda in Congress. The political cost of keeping the fund alive, even in theory, has been steep for the administration's own legislative priorities.
The anti-weaponization fund dispute fits into a wider landscape of federal courts pushing back on executive action. The DOJ's earlier posture on the fund was notably combative. The Associated Press reported that a Justice Department spokesperson declared the department "will not allow the policy preferences of judges to interfere" with its restitution efforts, a statement that practically invited further judicial scrutiny.
A second federal judge in Florida ordered Trump's attorneys to respond to what the AP described as "grievous allegations" of collusion and potential fraud on the court regarding the underlying IRS settlement. In Washington, D.C., another judge declined to temporarily halt operation of the fund in a case brought by a government watchdog group. Legal challenges also remain pending in California.
Federal judges across the country have been active in checking administration initiatives. A separate ruling struck down the administration's $100,000 H-1B visa fee, and other courts have intervened on immigration processing and executive renaming disputes.
Breitbart noted that critics from both parties accused the administration of planning to use the anti-weaponization fund as a political rewards program for Trump allies, a characterization the DOJ has disputed but never fully rebutted with the kind of formal legal action that would put the matter to rest.
Judge Brinkema's preliminary injunction remains in effect, blocking any action to create or operate the fund. The administration's refusal to file the sworn declarations means the lawsuit will almost certainly proceed on the merits. It is unclear whether Block's separation-of-powers arguments will persuade Brinkema to reconsider, but her prior rulings and public skepticism suggest the administration faces an uphill fight in her courtroom.
The DOJ has argued in multiple jurisdictions that the cases are moot because the fund was never set up and is not going forward. But mootness is a legal conclusion, not a press release. Courts typically require more than oral assurances, especially when the underlying legal instruments remain intact and the president has publicly expressed a desire to proceed.
The administration's position is not without principle. Separation of powers matters, and courts should be cautious about conscripting senior executive officials into sworn testimony as a routine litigation tactic. But principle works best when it is not also convenient. The DOJ could rescind the directives that created the fund. It could formally withdraw from the settlement agreement. It has done neither.
The growing number of federal court interventions into executive action makes the administration's posture on the anti-weaponization fund more consequential than the fund itself. How the DOJ handles judicial orders, whether it complies formally, resists on principle, or simply runs out the clock, sets the terms for every legal fight that follows.
If the fund is truly dead, the simplest way to prove it is to bury it on paper. The administration's refusal to do so tells the courts, and the country, that the question remains open, whatever officials say at the microphone.
