Federal judge temporarily halts Trump administration’s $1.8B 'anti-weaponization' fund

President Donald Trump's $1.776 billion "anti-weaponization fund" suffered a legal setback after a federal judge blocked the government from moving forward with the fund's creation. The Department of Justice (DoJ) announced the fund earlier this year to compensate alleged "victims of lawfare and weaponization." The $1.776 billion stemmed from a settlement between President Donald Trump and the DOJ over a $10 billion lawsuit that he filed against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). 

On Friday, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema barred the government from moving forward with the fund's creation while the judge hears additional legal arguments. Judge Brinkema scheduled a June 12 hearing for arguments on whether to extend the order blocking payouts from the fund, Associated Press reported. 

Since its announcement, the anti-weaponization fund has become a focal point of political criticism from Democratic lawmakers, who labelled it a "slush fund" created to compensate the January 6 rioters. Several Republicans, too, have expressed their opposition to the fund, and recently, a bipartisan bill was introduced to prevent taxpayer funds from being used for the fund. "Congress has a constitutional responsibility to protect taxpayer dollars and oversee federal spending. Taxpayer dollars will not become a discretionary payout fund. Transparency is not optional. Accountability is not negotiable," Representative Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), who introduced the bill along with Tom Suozzi (D-NY), said in a statement. 

Among the many critics of the fund, California Governor Gavin Newsom announced that his state will impose a 100% tax on payments distributed to residents under the Trump administration's $1.776 billion anti-weaponization fund. Newsom scathed that nobody who assaults police officers should get a payout, referring to the possibility of pardoned Jan 6 rioters getting restitution. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, too, expressed his displeasure with the development, stating that he was not a big fan of the plan. Senator Thom Tillis, another Republican, called the idea "stupid on stilts" and the fund a "payout pot for punks."

The latest order came after a bipartisan group of 35 former federal judges sought to reopen the case and inquire whether the compensation deal could be challenged as an act of fraud. The judges are represented by Democracy Defenders, a nonprofit group, and two law firms, Susman Godfrey and Platkin L.L.P. The plaintiffs’ attorneys claim there is no legal basis or accountability behind the fund. "The unlawfulness that has imbued the Anti-Weaponization Fund from its inception requires that it be wholly dismantled," the lawsuit states.