While the proposed fund is still in its initial stages, US District Judge Leonie Brinkema stated on Friday (May 29) that her order was issued “to ensure that no funds are irrevocably disbursed.” The Justice Department has yet to announce the members of the five-person panel responsible for managing the fund.
This case in Virginia is one of at least four lawsuits filed against the plan since its announcement earlier this month. The fund was established as part of a settlement regarding President Donald Trump’s lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service, focused on a prior leak of his tax information. Critics have labeled the arrangement a “slush fund” intended to assist the president’s supporters and allies.
Also Read: Trump says US naval blockade of Strait of Hormuz ‘will now be lifted’
Brinkema has scheduled a hearing for June 12 to address the request made on Thursday to halt operations of the fund amid the ongoing litigation. The Treasury Department is expected to transfer the entire fund amount — $1.776 billion — in mid-July, as noted in a memo from Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche.
The Justice Department released a statement asserting its “extreme confidence in the legality of the Anti-Weaponisation Fund, supported by ample precedent, including Obama-era settlements. We will not allow the policy preferences of judges to impede our efforts to provide restitution to victims of lawfare.”
Participants in the Virginia lawsuit include a former federal prosecutor who pursued charges against individuals alleged to have taken part in the January 6, 2021, riots at the US Capitol, as some Trump supporters attempted to halt Congress from certifying Joe Biden as the 2020 election’s winner. Trump, who lost to Biden, granted pardons or clemency to over 1,500 individuals charged or convicted in connection with the attack, and they are anticipated to benefit from the fund.
Also Read: Treasury Secretary Bessent confirms limited steps toward $250 bill featuring Donald Trump
“This administration is providing access to an illegally-created remedial process with minimal structure or oversight to those I investigated and prosecuted after January 6, enabling it to swiftly allocate funds to perceived political allies while branding individuals like me as disfavored enemies,” Andrew Floyd, the former assistant US attorney, noted in a declaration filed in court.
Skye Perryman, president of Democracy Forward, representing Floyd and the other plaintiffs in Virginia, stated that Brinkema’s order “recognized the urgent need to prevent taxpayer dollars from being distributed through a clandestine and unprecedented political compensation scheme before the court can thoroughly review the program’s legality.”
In another lawsuit, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a liberal-leaning government watchdog organization, filed a request on Thursday for an immediate temporary order to prevent US officials from activating the fund. A federal judge in Washington presiding over that case has not yet established a schedule.
Other pending legal challenges include a case filed by two current and former law enforcement officers who reacted to the January 6 riots and a new complaint filed this week by Allison Gill, the host of the Mueller, She Wrote podcast. Gill, a former employee of the US Department of Veterans Affairs, has emerged as a vocal critic of Trump.
Also Read: Trump says Obama, Biden spent hundreds of millions on Reflecting Pool; records show $34 million
Trump filed a lawsuit against the IRS in January, with private attorneys representing him. A federal judge in South Florida was examining the case’s validity, as Trump appeared to control both sides, when his legal team withdrew the case. The Justice Department publicly announced the settlement, which also included a prohibition on investigating Trump’s previous tax returns, but did not formally submit the agreement’s terms to the judge.
A group of former federal judges has requested that the Florida judge reopen the proceedings to investigate whether the agreement resulted from “a fraud on the court.”
The cases include Floyd v. Department of Justice, 26-cv-1399, US District Court, Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria); Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Department of Justice, 26-cv-1789, US District Court, District of Columbia (Washington); Dunn v. Bessent, 26-cv-1719, US District Court, District of Columbia (Washington); and Gill v. Department of Justice, 26-cv-3283, US District Court, Southern District of California (San Diego).
