DOJ rebuffs judge’s demand for fund-death declarations

The Justice Department says it will not provide court declarations from senior officials confirming the $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund will not proceed, arguing the judge’s order is unnecessary and threatens separation of powers. The dispute plays out in

On Friday, the Justice Department told a judge in Alexandria, Virginia that it won’t submit sworn court declarations from top administration officials confirming the anti-weaponization fund is dead.

The filing responds to Judge Leonie M. Brinkema’s push for declarations from acting Attorney General Todd Balance. a top deputy of his. Associate Attorney General Stan Woodward. and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. Brinkema had asked them to confirm that “they will not take any action to create or operate the Anti-Weaponization Fund. and that the Anti-Weaponization Fund will not proceed in any manner. or under any name.”.

In its latest court submission, the Justice Department argued that the declarations were “unnecessary.” It also said the judge’s order raises “serious separation of powers concerns.”

The fight is rooted in a controversial $1.8 billion fund that was tied to a settlement stemming from a legally dubious lawsuit President Donald Trump filed against the IRS. The fund was designed to compensate people who claimed to have been victims of government “weaponization” under prior administrations—an idea that quickly drew allegations it could function as a slush fund for Trump’s allies.

As opposition and legal challenges grew, the administration dropped the plan for the fund. Brinkema, in turn, signaled that she was leaning toward ruling the dispute moot because the fund was no longer moving.

But last week, she asked for declarations anyway—pointing to what she wanted on the record—writing that absent such a submission, the case would move forward to the next steps, including under her June 12 order.

The Justice Department’s response emphasizes that officials have already made their position clear. In the new filing. the department pointed to acting Attorney General Todd Balance’s testimony to Congress. where he said the fund was “not going forward. period.” It also pointed to Woodward’s signatory role on court filings saying the same.

The filing also argues there is no reason for the court to compel that additional testimony. The department said there was no “basis for the court to compel testimony from the Associate Attorney General and two Cabinet members.”

That message was echoed in a DOJ account on X on Friday. It said the judge’s demand was an attempt to require “her to personally sign-off on any and all future settlements. separate from this non-existent Fund. that the department may make. ” and insisted that “Judges do not get to insert themselves into the department’s routine settlement authority.”.

In the background, Brinkema’s original push for declarations came with a clear fork in the road: supply the court statements she requested, or face the case moving forward. Now the department has answered with refusal—despite the judge’s leaning toward treating the dispute as moot.

At the center of the dispute is a question that has hung over every stage of the fund’s legal fight: if officials say the anti-weaponization fund is not coming back. should the court still require senior-level declarations spelling that out line by line—or does that cross into the executive branch’s control of its own actions and future settlements?.

DOJ judge Leonie M. Brinkema anti-weaponization fund $1.8 billion Todd Balance Stan Woodward Scott Bessent Alexandria Virginia separation of powers Congress testimony IRS lawsuit Trump