DOJ Challenges Judge's Request on Controversial Fund Confirmation

The Justice Department is pushing back against a federal judge's request for top officials to confirm the status of a controversial $1.8 billion fund. The DOJ argues that such declarations are unnecessary and could raise significant separation of powers issues. This fund, originally intended to compensate individuals allegedly targeted by the government, faced immediate criticism and was ultimately abandoned by the administration. Judge Brinkema is now faced with deciding whether to accept the DOJ's public statements as sufficient confirmation that the fund is no longer active. The outcome of this legal dispute remains uncertain.

By Narendra Chaudhary Jun 20, 2026, 05:37 IST

Justice Department's Stance on Fund Confirmation

The Justice Department is contesting a federal judge's demand for senior officials to affirm under oath that a contentious $1.8 billion fund is permanently off the table. In a recent court submission, the DOJ argued that the judge's request for such declarations is unnecessary and cautioned that compliance could lead to significant separation of powers issues, as reported by a news outlet.

Purpose of the Fund

This legal matter is taking place in a federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, and is one of several ongoing challenges related to the fund. The money was initially derived from a settlement linked to a lawsuit that former President Trump initiated against the IRS, which critics have labeled as legally questionable from the outset. The intention was to utilize the fund to compensate individuals who alleged they were targeted or 'weaponized' by the government during previous administrations. However, the proposal faced immediate backlash, with critics arguing it could serve as a slush fund for Trump's supporters. As opposition mounted both politically and legally, the administration ultimately abandoned the initiative.

Judge's Request for Written Confirmation

After the administration withdrew the fund, Judge Leonie M. Brinkema, who is presiding over the Virginia case, indicated she was inclined to declare the legal matter moot. However, she sought formal confirmation rather than relying on informal assurances from the administration. Last week, she instructed the DOJ to provide official declarations from three key officials: acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, his deputy Associate Attorney General Stan Woodward, and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. She requested that they confirm they would not take any actions to establish or manage the Anti-Weaponization Fund, nor would it proceed in any form or under any name.

DOJ's Response

Instead of complying with the judge's order, the Justice Department's latest filing referenced statements made by officials in other contexts. It highlighted Blanche's testimony before Congress, where he reportedly stated that the fund was 'not going forward, period.' The filing also mentioned that Woodward had previously signed court documents affirming the same position. Furthermore, the DOJ contended that there was no valid reason for the court to compel testimony from the Associate Attorney General and two Cabinet members, as cited in the news report.

The department also took its argument public, posting an explanation on social media that characterized the judge's request as an overreach. The post stated, 'Essentially, the judge's demand for declarations was an attempt to require her personal approval on any future settlements, unrelated to this non-existent Fund, that the department may pursue.' It emphasized that judges do not have the authority to interfere with the department's routine settlement powers.

Next Steps

At this point, it is up to Judge Brinkema to determine how to react to the DOJ's refusal. It remains uncertain whether she will continue with the case or accept the department's existing public statements as adequate confirmation that the fund is indeed defunct.