Acting U.S. Attorney Todd Blanche speaks during a press conference at the Department of Justice on May 4, 2026 in Washington, DC.
Kevin Dietch | Getty Images
A federal judge said Thursday that a lawsuit challenging the Justice Department’s creation of a $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund will move forward because the department refused to confirm in writing to him that the fund had been abolished, as the department had said orally.
Judge Leonie Brinkema said in an order from the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia, that if the Justice Department had given a “brief written declaration under penalty of perjury” that the funds had in fact been expended, that would have been enough to dismiss the case as an issue.
Brinkema said that Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s refusal to rescind the May 18 memo establishing the fund’s structure and that he and President Donald Trump remain interested in redressing the alleged victims of Justice Department overreach “all support this conclusion” that the lawsuit is invalid.
The judge ordered the Justice Department to file a response to the lawsuit by July 17.
Blanche established the fund as part of President Trump’s $10 billion settlement with the Internal Revenue Service over leaked tax records. The fund, named after the year the Declaration of Independence was signed, could total $1.776 billion and is intended to provide relief to those who have allegedly “suffered the use of arms and illegal activities.”
Critics called it a “slush fund” to pay Trump’s allies, including hundreds of people convicted of crimes related to their involvement in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Blanche testified before a House committee on June 2 that the fund “can no longer go forward” after it was harshly criticized by Republican and Democratic lawmakers.
Justice Department lawyers pointed that statement to Brinkema and another federal judge, arguing that it was enough to dismiss the case challenging the fund.
The Justice Department said in a court filing this week that a written declaration that the fund was retired was “unnecessary” and that Brinkema’s request for Blanche and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to put Blanche’s commitment in writing “suggests serious concerns about the separation of powers.”
However, Brinkema wrote in Thursday’s order that “defendants’ refusal to lend real credibility to their representations about the Fund’s future development is particularly troubling given the President’s consistent support of the Fund and Acting Attorney General Blanche’s acknowledgment that the Fund remains ‘important.'” ”
“Acting Attorney General Blanche reiterated many times during her testimony,
The fund said it would not move forward, and when asked if he would “issue a new written memo revoking the May 18 memo,” he said, “We have no intention of putting anything in writing.” And I’ve said it over and over again,” Brinkema said.
Plaintiffs in the case include Andrew Floyd, a former federal prosecutor who said he was fired for his role in the case against Trump supporters who stormed the U.S. Capitol. The other plaintiffs are Jonathan Carabello, a professor at California State University, Channel Islands, and the city of New Haven, Connecticut.
