Judge declines to halt "anti-weaponization fund" but warns DOJ not to "play possum"
A federal judge refused to block the Trump administration's anti-weaponization fund, saying the Justice Department says it is not moving ahead.
Intelligence analysis by GPT-5.4 Mini
Judge Richard Leon declined to issue an immediate block on the Trump administration's $1.776 billion anti-weaponization fund, finding the case may no longer present a live dispute if the Justice Department truly abandoned it. But he warned the department not to mislead the court, while a watchdog group argued the fund still exists on paper.
A judge looked at a fight over a big pot of money the Trump team had set up. The judge said he would not stop it right now because the government says it is not using it, but he warned them not to pretend and sneak around later.
Analysis
What the judge decided
A federal judge in Washington declined to issue a temporary restraining order against the Trump administration's so-called anti-weaponization fund. The ruling gave the Justice Department an early win because the government argued the fund is no longer moving forward after Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said it would not be implemented.
Why the case is still alive
The lawsuit was brought by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which called the fund illegal and argued that Blanche's public statements did not amount to a formal rescission. Its lawyer said the charter creating the fund remains in effect and that any changes would need to be made in writing by the relevant parties. The group also pointed out that President Trump has not personally said the fund is dead.
Judge Richard Leon said he was not persuaded that a live controversy remained, but he also warned the Justice Department not to "play possum" with the court. He said he would decide later on the group's request for a preliminary injunction.
What the government said
The Justice Department argued the case is moot, and also said there is no standing and the issue is not yet ripe for review. Its lawyer said no board members have been appointed, no procedures have been adopted, no claims have been filed, and no money has been paid out. The government has taken the position that Blanche's testimony before Congress is enough to show the fund is not moving forward.
The fund itself was unveiled last month as part of a settlement involving a lawsuit Trump filed over the leak of his tax returns. Critics, including Democrats, described it as a slush fund for allies, while supporters framed it as a way to compensate alleged victims of government persecution.
Key points
- Judge Richard Leon denied an immediate order blocking the anti-weaponization fund.
- The Justice Department said the fund is not moving forward, which led the judge to treat the case as potentially moot.
- Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington argued the fund still exists because it was not formally rescinded in writing.
- Leon warned the Justice Department not to "play possum" with the court.
- The judge will decide later whether to issue a preliminary injunction.
If the Justice Department truly leaves the fund dormant, the dispute could end without any money being distributed. That would reduce the chance of a broader legal fight over how the fund would work in practice. A final ruling could also force the government to clarify its position in writing, which would make the policy's status easier for courts and the public to understand.
If the government is only pausing the fund rather than formally cancelling it, the legal fight could continue and deepen. The lack of a written rescission may keep the policy in limbo and invite more challenges. If board members are appointed later or claims start moving forward, critics could argue the government misled the court and revived a controversial program after saying it was dead.
