Judge Leonie – A federal judge in Alexandria, Virginia issued a preliminary injunction blocking President Donald Trump’s “Anti-Weaponization Fund” linked to Jan. 6 rioters, citing a lack of “uncontestable evidence” that the plan won’t be repeated. The court gave the Justice
When President Donald Trump’s Justice Department told Congress that an “Anti-Weaponization Fund” for Jan. 6 rioters was not moving forward, it sounded like an answer. In federal court Friday in Alexandria, it sounded like something else—an explanation the judge wasn’t willing to accept.
Judge Leonie Brinkema issued a preliminary injunction, halting Trump’s so-called fund plan. “The bottom line is I don’t have the type of uncontestable evidence to show that [attempting to create the fund] would not be repeated. ” Brinkema said. She pointed to what she called “clear evidence. ” including statements by the acting attorney general and multiple statements by the president emphasizing how important it was that the fund go forward.
The Justice Department’s argument ran into a specific problem: the government could not show, in court, why it could not simply put its decision in writing.
Justice Department attorney Andrew Block struggled to answer why the administration hadn’t produced a clear written record. “I don’t know, your honor. I have not had the ability to speak to the attorney general and ask that question,” Block told Brinkema.
Brinkema’s response was blunt and practical. She gave the government one week to provide a declaration signed under penalty of perjury by both acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. The declaration, the judge required, must state there would be no fund going forward.
The case was filed by Andrew Floyd. a former Justice Department prosecutor who previously served as deputy chief for the Capitol Siege division investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Floyd brought the lawsuit in May. The background to his involvement carries its own history: Floyd was fired by former Attorney General Pam Bondi amid a rash of other Jan. 6 prosecutor firings last year.
Soon after the suit was filed, Brinkema ordered the government to temporarily stop plans to create or operate the fund born from Trump’s self-described settlement with the IRS.
By Friday’s hearing, federal lawyers said publicly that the fund was “not going forward.” But Floyd’s lawyer, Joel McElvain, told the court that the public message and the courtroom record don’t match.
McElvain wrote that there is “no consistency between what is said publicly and what is said in court.” He said the government had “failed to substantiate that position with any competent evidence. ” despite “repeated requests” from plaintiffs. He also argued that the record lacked a written modification of the Trump v. IRS Agreement that created the fund and lacked any rescission of the acting attorney general’s order funding it.
Brinkema’s courtroom comments reflected the core friction of the case: what people are told and what the law can rely on.
She also pointed to a disparity in how the public appears to understand the fund’s status versus what the administration has said in court. At the courthouse in Alexandria where she presides. Brinkema said that one request for compensation to the slush fund had already been received. Block responded by telling the judge. “We can’t control what everyone who thinks there is a fund thinks. ” and added that “People may be lining up for lawyers… [but] none of those applications are being considered.”.
The Friday hearing didn’t end with a final ruling on the merits. After a declaration is signed by Blanche and Bessent, Brinkema said she would assess whether the entire case could be dismissed as moot.
Outside the courtroom, the dispute also continued to swirl around what Trump has said about paying people tied to Jan. 6.
Trump hasn’t offered a firm commitment to limits on who could receive money—for example. whether rioters convicted of assaulting police would qualify. When NBC’s Kristen Welker asked Trump this week whether the fund was still alive despite Blanche’s claims to Congress that it was not. Trump began by discussing the harm he said rioters suffered. “People have been hurt so badly by radical left lunatics that worked for the Biden administration and Sleepy Joe. ”
Trump said. “They’re vicious. They’re violent, what they did to people. And of course they went after me more than anybody else… But people have been badly hurt. They’ve committed suicide. They’ve lost their jobs. They’ve lost their families. They’ve lost their wives. They’ve lost everything over a fake weaponization government… Well. look. if it was up to me. I’d pay them the kind of money that they deserve.”.
Trump also told Welker he would “have to see it” and referred to police who defended the Capitol as “dirty cops.” He made similar remarks on “Pod Force One” with Miranda Divine, and he continued to espouse debunked conspiracy theories about the FBI instigating the insurrection.
A key watchdog group. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. saw its earlier attempt to stop the fund move forward as well—its request for a temporary restraining order was denied this week. In that separate case, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon in Washington. D.C. said he could not get a straight answer about why the government would not simply rescind any order it had to create the fund. When Leon pressed Block. Block replied: “All I know is that the acting attorney general has said the fund is not moving forward.” Blanche had made that remark to Congress last week.
A week-by-week timetable now presses on the Justice Department. Brinkema’s order demands more than statements; it demands sworn documentation.
Amy Powell. a former Justice Department senior trial counsel and current director for Lawyers for Good Government. said Brinkema’s ruling put a fine point on the administration’s approach. “If the fund is truly rescinded, where is the sworn declaration saying so?. The court appears unwilling to treat political statements and media reports as a substitute for a formal record,” Powell said.
Carl Tobias. a law professor at the University of Richmond. framed the judge’s decision through the broader atmosphere surrounding the Justice Department under Trump and Blanche. “It seems to reflect her long experience in dealing with DOJ and Trump,” Tobias said. He pointed to what he described as a lack of trust among federal judges in EDVA. the District of Columbia District. the District of Maryland. and “many other of the 90+ districts currently seem to have” in Trump. Blanche. and other DOJ officials based on representations made by DOJ lawyers in their courtrooms.
For now, the court has frozen the plan—at least until the government can produce the sworn declaration Brinkema ordered.
Jan. 6 Anti-Weaponization Fund Leonie Brinkema Todd Blanche Scott Bessent Justice Department Floyd lawsuit Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
So they froze his fund… but what about the other funds, just asking.
Seems like the judge saying “no uncontestable evidence” is just legal-speak for she didn’t buy it. Like, why even need evidence if Congress already heard it wasn’t moving forward? Sounds messy.
Wait I thought the DOJ already told Congress it wasn’t happening? Now it’s “something else”?? I’m confused. Also “Anti-Weaponization Fund” sounds like a PR name, but maybe the judge just hates the wording or something.
This is why nothing gets done. One judge stops a “fund plan” and everybody acts like it’s proof of whatever they want. The article says she pointed to statements by the acting AG and Trump like that’s “clear evidence,” but then also she wants uncontestable evidence, so… which is it? Sounds like political theater honestly.