A federal judge in the United States has ruled to indefinitely block the administration of President Donald Trump from proceeding with a plan to create a $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund. The fund was designed to pay individuals it said had experienced “lawfare” and “weaponisation” of the government.
Friday’s ruling marks another setback for the plan, which had already faced strong opposition from legislators. Earlier, the Justice Department was forced to withdraw the controversial proposal after fierce reactions and lawsuits.
Judge Leonie Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia issued a temporary halt to the plan last week, then imposed an indefinite preliminary injunction as the temporary order expired on Friday.
The fund stems from a settlement agreement between Trump and the Justice Department over a $10 billion lawsuit the president had filed against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
Under the deal, the Justice Department set up a $1.776 billion fund managed by a five-member committee to distribute money to people it deemed victims of “weaponization”—a term Trump often uses to describe criminal investigations and prosecutions targeting himself and his allies.
Attorney General Todd Blanche abandoned the plan earlier this month as criticism mounted. Government lawyers argued that lawsuits challenging the plan were now moot.
Even before the administration announced the fund’s cancellation, the Justice Department had not established the five-person committee to decide payout criteria, so no money had been disbursed or claims accepted.
Many allies of the Republican president opposed compensating protesters who stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021. However, in May, Blanche did not rule out the possibility that Capitol protesters who engaged in violent acts could qualify for payments from the fund.
Trump issued mass pardons for Capitol protesters on his first day back at the White House last year. More than 1,500 people had been prosecuted in connection with the January 6 attack before Trump wiped out all cases with blanket pardons.
Plaintiffs who sued to block the plan argued it diverted taxpayer money into what was essentially a slush fund and expressed doubt about Blanche’s assurance that the fund would not be deployed.
While the administration has backed away from the plan, Trump himself has not endorsed the fund’s cancellation and continues to mention it favorably in media remarks.
