WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Justice has declined to provide a formal signed declaration requested by a federal judge confirming that a controversial “Anti-Weaponization Fund” will not move forward, according to court filings on Friday, June 19, 2026. The request came from U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in a case challenging the fund, which was created through a settlement involving President Donald Trump and the Internal Revenue Service.
The Justice Department argued that a sworn declaration from senior officials was unnecessary and raised separation-of-powers concerns, according to the filing. The department previously said the fund would not proceed after Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told lawmakers that the administration was abandoning the plan.
The fund was designed to compensate individuals who claimed they were victims of government “weaponization,” according to the Justice Department’s description. The proposal drew legal challenges from advocacy groups and criticism from opponents who questioned its creation and potential recipients. The administration defended the initiative as a lawful settlement-related program, while challengers argued that it required further court review.
Judge Brinkema previously blocked the Justice Department from taking steps to implement the fund while litigation continued, saying public statements that the program was ending were not the same as a formal legal action, according to Reuters. The judge requested written confirmation from officials that the fund would not be created.
The dispute followed earlier proceedings in which another federal judge, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, declined a request to temporarily halt the fund after the Justice Department said it was no longer moving forward. Leon said he accepted the administration’s representation at that stage but warned officials not to mislead the court. “Don’t play possum with this court,” Leon told a government attorney, according to The Associated Press.
The Justice Department said in its filing that the court should not require declarations from officials about a program the department says is not proceeding. The plaintiffs have argued that a formal statement is needed because the underlying agreement creating the fund has not been officially rescinded.
As of Sunday, June 21, the legal challenges remained active, and the status of the fund continued to be addressed in federal court proceedings. The Justice Department has maintained that it does not intend to implement the program, while the court has not issued a final ruling resolving the broader dispute.
