DOJ Refuses Transparency on Anti-Weaponization Fund, Hides Behind 'Separation of Powers'
Select a version of the text written from a presumed ideological perspective. This is not the original text, but a hypothetical version — how someone with that viewpoint might have phrased it. Tapping the current version again will return to the original or select cleaned version.
The Justice Department is refusing to provide a sworn declaration about its controversial $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund, invoking constitutional technicalities instead of offering transparency. Critics argue the fund could serve as a slush fund for Trump allies and undermine accountability for right-wing abuses.
A federal judge in Virginia has extended a preliminary injunction blocking a $1.8 billion fund the Justice Department announced in May, which was part of a settlement of former President Donald Trump’s lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service. The so-called 'anti-weaponization' fund was described by the administration as a mechanism to compensate individuals allegedly harmed by prosecutorial overreach during the Biden presidency—an accusation often wielded by conservatives to shield themselves from legitimate investigations.
Judge Leonie Brinkema demanded that Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent submit written, sworn declarations that the fund would not move forward before she would consider dismissing the lawsuit seeking a permanent block. The Justice Department, however, is stonewalling, arguing in a Friday filing that providing such a declaration is unnecessary and would supposedly raise 'serious separation of powers concerns.'
'The Acting Attorney General has testified before Congress that the Fund is 'not going forward, period'... Undersigned counsel have twice signed briefs reaffirming that 'the Fund is not going forward,' and counsel for Defendants has twice said substantially the same thing in open court,' DOJ attorney Andrew Block wrote.
Block claimed these statements were made 'against the backdrop of serious penalties for falsity.' Yet, Blanche previously refused to provide a sworn written statement to a House panel, raising further doubts about the DOJ’s commitment to transparency. President Trump, who stands to benefit, later said he wanted the fund to proceed—a fact the judge cited as justification for demanding formal declarations.
The fund’s creation was announced as part of a settlement of Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit alleging an IRS contractor leaked his tax records. Critics from both parties have voiced concerns that the money could be funneled to Trump allies, including those convicted for their roles in the violent January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection. The DOJ’s refusal to provide sworn assurances only heightens fears of backroom deals and a lack of accountability.