A federal judge in Virginia appeared deeply skeptical of the Trump administration’s effort to dismiss the most successful legal challenge to the $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund, saying the legal issues surrounding the fund are “still alive and kicking.”
In a hearing Friday morning, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, who indefinitely blocked the government from taking steps to create the fund in June, did not appear swayed by the government’s argument that the fund is dead, not only now but forever.
She expressed concern that the administration could still move forward with the fund under a different name, pointing to conflicting public statements made by the Trump administration — statements that she said undermined the arguments the Department of Justice was making in her courtroom.
“I think the fund now — ‘the anti-weaponization fund’ — that entity is gone, but is there a functional equivalent of that right now?” she asked the government.
Andrew Block, the attorney representing the government, pointed to Attorney General Todd Blanche’s confirmation testimony, in which he said the fund was dead.
“The ‘anti-weaponization’ fund is not happening, it’s moving forward,” Block argued.
The Trump administration has asked the judge to dismiss the case, arguing it was moot since Blanche rescinded the fund last month.
Block said the issue of the fund, which he repeatedly called a “policy disagreement,” had been resolved through the political process. He did not rule out the possibility that a new “policy” could emerge in the future.
The coalition that brought the lawsuit, which includes a former Jan. 6 prosecutor, is also not convinced the fund is dead.
“The day the injunction is lifted, they will move forward,” said Pooja Boisture, an attorney for the plaintiffs. She added that they wanted a sworn statement that the fund would not move forward in the future.
Brinkema had previously offered the Trump administration an off ramp, indicating she would likely dismiss the case if they filed a sworn declaration, under penalty of perjury, that the fund “would not proceed in any manner, or under any name.”
The Trump administration refused to file such a declaration.
Friday’s hearing marked the first time the case returned to Brinkema’s courtroom since Blanche claimed to kill it last month.
Amid pressure from Republican senators who were blocking his confirmation, Blanche announced the administration was abandoning the fund and limiting the scope of the deal that grants the Trump family and businesses immunity from existing IRS audits.
Notably, Blanche’s order that rescinded the fund made no promises that the administration would not try to revive it in the future. The document simply said that the order establishing the fund “is rescinded and shall have no force or effect.”
Nor did Blanche restrict the immunity deal in any official, legally binding capacity.
While Blanche’s move quieted many critics, it didn’t silence them completely. Just days later, the plaintiffs in this case filed an amended complaint, expressing skepticism that Blanche’s actions did what he said they did.
“This present-tense wordsmithing assuredly does not affirm, under penalty of perjury, that ‘the Anti-Weaponization Fund will not proceed in any manner, or under any name,’ either now or in the future,” the plaintiffs wrote. “Nor does it purport to prevent the parties to the [settlement agreement], including President Trump, from enforcing that agreement.”
The new complaint is also the first to target the other part of the settlement agreement: the IRS immunity deal, which they called unconstitutional.
“DOJ’s concurrent statement about the Immunity Order purports to narrow the scope of that Order but it does not rescind it,” the amended complaint said. “This unsigned piece of paper, which carries no more weight than a press release, confirms the IRS will terminate tax audits and liability at the request of the President and conscript [the National Treasury Employees Union] members into violating their oath and the Internal Revenue code to grant the President with an unconstitutional emolument.”
Brinkema opened the hearing, asking the plaintiffs if any specific auditor had been told to stop working on the president’s tax returns.
The plaintiffs said they were unaware, but the IRS rules bar auditors from discussing confidential tax return information. If an auditor revealed such information, they could be subject to civil or criminal liability.
Brinkema has not yet ruled on the legality of the immunity deal.
President Donald Trump’s DOJ had established both the fund and the immunity deal as part of a settlement agreement, stemming from the president’s $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS over his leaked tax returns. Under the agreement, the government would create a $1.8 billion taxpayer fund to compensate individuals who allege they were victims of a “weaponized” justice system.
The agreement also yielded an addendum that granted Trump, his family and his businesses immunity from all existing IRS audits.
U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams, who presided over Trump’s initial lawsuit in Florida, has slammed the agreement, finding Trump sued the IRS “for an improper purpose” to gain the appearance of “judicial legitimacy for a ‘settlement’ that had no basis in law or fact.”
Williams barred the parties to the suit, including Trump himself, from using “the purported ‘settlement agreement’” in judicial or other official proceedings as evidence of a settlement of the lawsuit.
For now, the Trump administration also remains barred from creating the fund while Brinkema’s injunction remains in effect. Brinkema did not issue a ruling Friday during the hearing but indicated she would rule on the government’s bid to dismiss the case soon.
The post DOJ says ‘anti-weaponization’ fund is dead — but judge says legal issues still ‘alive and kicking’ appeared first on MS NOW.
