President Donald Trump’s administration appears to be backing away from a proposed $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” first reported Monday, but the White House declined to confirm. The Justice Department said it would comply with a recent court order tem
When the reports hit Monday morning that President Donald Trump was dropping his $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” Capitol Hill didn’t treat it as a resolved question. It treated it like a fight that still wasn’t over.
The White House refused to confirm or deny the claim. Instead, the Justice Department pointed to its own statement saying it would comply with a court order issued last week. That order temporarily barred the administration from establishing the fund or making any payouts while the matter heads toward a court hearing set for June 12.
The Justice Department’s Monday statement did not say whether the fund would be withdrawn. “The Department will abide by the Court’s ruling,” it said.
Pressed on the reports. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said he had urged the White House to drop the fund. pointing to opposition from Republican senators and a push by Democrats to ban it by law. “I do think that the best way to handle it is if the administration decides to shut it down themselves. ” Thune said Monday. Asked whether he’d been told the fund was dead, Thune said he hadn’t heard such an announcement.
Democrats quickly seized on that uncertainty, arguing that even if Trump is stepping back, the legal and constitutional problem is bigger than one executive decision.
Trump created the fund last month, tied to a supposed “settlement” between the Justice Department and Trump. In the description of that settlement. Trump—who had sued his own administration demanding $10 billion in damages over a past leak of his tax information—received terms that also freed Trump. his family members. and their businesses from any ongoing tax audits. potentially saving him millions of dollars in back taxes.
The fund also carried a politically explosive premise: it was framed as restitution tied to demands by Jan. 6 rioters. The backlash that followed on Capitol Hill was swift, and Republicans quickly dropped plans to pass an immigration enforcement bill.
Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said online that if Trump and Republicans were abandoning what he called a corrupt scheme, they should have no trouble banning it in law. “Trump’s word is nowhere near enough.”
Skye Perryman. president of Democracy Forward. which sued over the fund on behalf of several plaintiffs. said the administration hadn’t actually confirmed it was killing the fund—so the legal fight would continue. “If these rumors are true. the administration abandoning its illegal slush fund would be a major victory for people in America. ” Perryman said. “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.”.
House Democrats are also pressing Congress to act. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.). the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee. pointed to what he called the ambiguity of the Justice Department’s statement and said Congress still needs to pass a law killing the settlement. In a press release. Raskin said. “Nothing in DOJ’s statement dissolves this blatantly unconstitutional fund which was neither authorized nor appropriated by Congress and which somehow purports to exercise judicial powers to decide legal cases and controversies without anything resembling legal principles or standards to guide them.”.
The court order at the center of Monday’s reporting was issued last week by U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia. It enjoined the Trump administration “from taking any further action pursuant to the creation or operation of the Anti-Weaponization Fund. ” but only until a court hearing scheduled for June 12.
On Monday. the White House pointed reporters back to the DOJ statement. and the administration’s silence about whether it has fully abandoned the fund left room for both sides to claim momentum. Democrats pressed for legislative action, while Republicans—at least some of them—urged Trump to shut it down himself.
Back in Washington, the question for lawmakers and the public is now narrower but sharper: not whether the court order is being followed, but whether the administration is truly done—and whether Congress will treat the underlying settlement and fund as something that must be ended by law.
Anti-Weaponization Fund Trump DOJ court order Leonie Brinkema June 12 hearing Jan. 6 rioters restitution Chuck Schumer John Thune Jamie Raskin Anti-Weaponization Fund ban
So is it dropped or not lol.
They “declined to confirm” which basically means it’s still happening. Or it’s a PR thing to look tough then lawyers take over. Court order or not, this is all political anyway.
Wait I’m confused—if the court told them not to make payouts, wouldn’t that mean the fund is already dead? Like why would they even keep saying “anti-weaponization” if they can’t do anything. Sounds like a loop.
Thune said to drop it themselves, but they didn’t confirm it so everyone’s pretending it’s different. Also “anti-weaponization” sounds like they’re weaponizing something against weaponization?? And June 12 like it’s some TV season finale. If Trump made it last month from a settlement then why is DOJ talking like they’re just a bystander?