Judge orders disclosure of architects behind $1.8 billion anti-weaponization 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 federal magistrate judge in Virginia required the Trump administration to reveal who designed the controversial anti-weaponization fund, part of a lawsuit seeking to block the program.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Ivan D. Davis of the Eastern District of Virginia ordered the Trump administration to identify the individuals who created the structure of the nearly $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund, which Attorney General Todd Blanche has said is no longer active. The order, issued on Friday, compels the government to disclose the names of the fund’s architects, according to a courtroom source.
The fund was created under a settlement between President Donald Trump, his sons, his company and the Internal Revenue Service, intended to set aside taxpayer money for payouts to those claiming they suffered “weaponization and lawfare.” Critics said the provision could extend to individuals convicted in the Jan. 6 attack and later pardoned by Trump.
The program was temporarily blocked in May after a lawsuit filed by a former Jan. 6 prosecutor and a law professor, joined by career IRS employees, challenged the agreement that granted Trump and his family members immunity from IRS audits. The plaintiffs are represented by Democracy Forward, a nonprofit advocacy group.
"Today's order granting discovery is a significant step in getting to the bottom of the slush fund," senior counsel Aman George said in a statement.
The Justice Department had not responded to requests for comment at the time of the ruling. The fund has faced bipartisan criticism and raised questions about Attorney General Blanche's nomination. Although Blanche later wrote that the fund was rescinded, the original agreement did not list the signatories, leaving open the possibility of revival.
President Trump has previously described the fund as “dead” while expressing regret that it does not exist, and has suggested that people affected by the Jan. 6 prosecutions were treated poorly.