DOJ declines to provide sworn statements on status of proposed $1.8 billion compensation fund
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.
A Justice Department lawyer said a judge’s request for signed declarations that a controversial compensation fund would not be created is unnecessary, citing prior testimony and filings that the fund is dead.
The Justice Department has refused to submit sworn declarations from senior officials confirming that a proposed $1.8 billion compensation fund, criticized as a “slush fund,” will not be established. In a filing, senior counsel Andrew Block argued that Judge Leonie Brinkema’s demand for such documents constitutes judicial overreach and raises separation-of-powers concerns. Block referenced acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s congressional testimony, in which she stated the fund was “not going forward, period,” and noted that the department had reiterated the same position in two briefs and in open court.
Judge Brinkema had issued a preliminary injunction blocking the creation of the fund and set a deadline for the declarations, warning that failure to comply would trigger a scheduling order and a July 17 response deadline. The plaintiff, former federal prosecutor Andrew Floyd, alleges he was dismissed for prosecuting participants in the Jan. 6 Capitol attack.
While DOJ officials maintain they are complying with the court order and have abandoned plans for the fund, they have not ruled out alternative mechanisms for any payouts. The fund was reportedly linked to a settlement in which former President Donald Trump agreed to dismiss a lawsuit against the IRS, with additional provisions shielding him and his family from future DOJ or IRS actions.
"Such declarations are unnecessary and the compelled testimony of senior officials from the Executive Branch implicates serious separation of powers concerns," wrote Andrew Block.
The dispute continues as the court assesses whether the DOJ’s statements satisfy the injunction’s requirements.