DOJ agrees to court order freezing Trump's anti-weaponization 'slush fund'

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (CN) — The Department of Justice signaled on social media Monday that it would comply with a court order preventing the creation of the controversial anti-weaponization fund.

The post on X follows a Friday order from U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema intended to ensure no funds are irreversibly disbursed before pending litigation lodged by a collection of individuals and organizations targeted by the Justice Department under President Donald Trump’s tutelage.

The plaintiffs argue that the $1.776 billion fund benefits only those aligned with the Trump administration, in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

“The Department of Justice disagrees strongly with the decision on the Anti-Weaponization Fund put forth by the United States District Court Judge in the Eastern District of Virginia, wherein the court stated that, under no circumstances, may the Department of Justice proceed with the Anti-Weaponization Fund recently established in order to make up for the tremendous abuse, harm and hate unfairly shown to so many people,” the department wrote in its tweet.

The department further criticized the plaintiffs’ argument pertaining to political discrimination.

“This fund was open to anybody who was so weaponized, targeted or persecuted, whether they were Democrat, Republican, Conservative, Independent or otherwise,” it wrote. “The Department will abide by the court’s ruling.”

The tweet comes as reports emerge that senior administration officials have indicated that Trump would drop the fund. Trump has yet to confirm his plans for the fund.

“We have seen time and again the president have to abandon corrupt and unlawful schemes in the face of litigation and public pressure. If these rumors are true, the administration abandoning its illegal slush fund would be a major victory for people in America. Until the administration fully abandons the scheme, it’s beyond dispute that it will not recur, and our clients’ harm is remedied, we will be in court challenging it,” Skye Perryman, President and CEO of Democracy Forward, said in a statement.

The order placed only a temporary freeze on the fund’s creation. Brinkema declined the plaintiffs’ request to expedite the briefing and a hearing schedule for the pending motion for a temporary restraining order, stating the court would benefit from full briefing. The Bill Clinton appointee granted the Justice Department’s motion requesting additional time to respond, delaying the hearing from June 5 to June 12.

The plaintiffs comprise former Assistant United States Attorney Andrew Floyd, who led a task force that prosecuted individuals involved in the January 6, 2021, insurrection; California State University Channel Islands professor Jonathan Caravello, whom a jury acquitted of felony assault of a federal officer stemming from his participation in a protest of an immigration raid; and nonprofit organizations National Abortion Federation and Common Cause, along with the city of New Haven, Connecticut.

The plaintiffs say the fund — created as a result of a settlement between Trump and the IRS in a case concerning the leaking of his tax records — unconstitutionally exceeds executive authority, bypasses Congress’s exclusive authority over federal spending and appropriations and violates the Administrative Procedure Act.

The Department of Justice announced on May 19 that it would set up the nearly $1.8 billion fund to provide a “systematic process” for people seeking relief for claims of “weaponization and lawfare” by the federal government. The DOJ’s judgment fund will pay for the $1.776 billion reserve.

Critics, including lawmakers from both parties, have framed it as a “slush fund” for the president’s political allies and worried that it opened an avenue for people convicted of violent crimes related to the Jan. 6, 2021, riot to seek financial restitution.

The plaintiffs argue the fund lacks proper oversight because it doesn’t require judicial review, nor does it require the DOJ to disclose the identities of claimants or the amounts they are compensated.

The plaintiffs also say the fund is unconstitutional in that it won’t provide relief for those Republican officials targeted. They claim the implied viewpoint discrimination runs afoul of the First Amendment.

But the DOJ claims the fund isn’t without precedent, citing a 2011 settlement in the case Keepseagle v. Vilsack, which it says is structurally identical to its new fund.

The Obama-era agreement approved $680 million in funds for Native Americans who accused the government of discriminating against tribal farmers.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche admitted when the fund was unveiled that no federal judge had approved the DOJ’s new program, but insisted it did not make a “big difference.” He said that while a judge signed off on the Keepseagle agreement, the courts had “nothing to do” with handling the money involved.