Judge’s Warning Rattles DOJ

June 11, 2026

Close-up view of the U.S. Department of Justice website through a magnifying glass

A federal judge just refused to stop the $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” for now, but warned the Trump Justice Department not to “play possum” about whether the money is really dead or only sleeping.

Story Snapshot

A watchdog group failed to win an emergency court order to freeze the Anti-Weaponization Fund, but the judge kept the case alive and issued a sharp warning to the Department of Justice (DOJ).
The DOJ now insists the $1.776 billion fund “is not going forward,” even though DOJ’s own settlement papers and press release set up a dedicated account fed from the Treasury’s Judgment Fund.
Critics argue the fund uses a backdoor settlement to move nearly $1.8 billion in taxpayer money without direct approval from Congress, raising separation-of-powers alarms.
The judge signaled concern that DOJ might shut the fund down on paper to dodge court review, then revive it later if lawsuits are tossed as moot.

What the Judge Decided – And Why It Matters

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., turned down a government watchdog’s request for a temporary restraining order that would have blocked the Trump administration’s Anti-Weaponization Fund on an emergency basis.^[1] The group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, argued the fund was “illegally created” and “deliberately structured to operate with maximum secrecy.”^[1] The judge ruled the group had not yet shown it would likely win under the law, so the short-term freeze was denied.^[1]

During the hearing, however, the judge did not give the Department of Justice a free pass.^[1] The court warned DOJ lawyers not to “play possum” about the true status of the fund, pushing them to be clear whether the program is truly dead or might be revived later if courts dismiss the lawsuits.^[1] That warning matters because DOJ is now asking several courts to throw out challenges as moot by saying the fund “had not been set up and is now not going forward.”^[1]^[2]

How the Fund Was Built Through a Settlement

The fund began as part of a settlement of President Donald Trump’s lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns, plus related claims tied to the Russia probe and the Mar-a-Lago raid.^[5] Under that deal, Trump dropped his $10 billion case, and the Attorney General created the Anti-Weaponization Fund to compensate people who say they were targeted or “weaponized” against under the Biden administration.^[1]^[5]

The Justice Department’s own press release said the fund would receive $1.776 billion from the federal Judgment Fund, a permanent Treasury account used to pay court judgments and settlements.^[5] Settlement documents show language directing “a payment of $1,776,000,000 to an account for the sole use” of the Anti-Weaponization Fund, confirming a concrete transfer path, not just a vague idea.^[7] The fund was given power to issue formal apologies and pay monetary relief to claimants who could prove they were harmed by government weaponization.^[5]^[7]

Why Watchdogs and Some Lawmakers Are Alarmed

Government watchdogs and some members of both parties argue this design looks like a massive spending program created by settlement, not by Congress.^[1]^[3] They say the administration used the Judgment Fund, which exists to pay legal losses, as a $1.8 billion piggy bank to launch a new policy program without going through the normal budget process.^[5] Legal critics warn that letting presidents do this turns settlements into a backdoor way to rewrite spending laws and bypass the Constitution’s power of the purse.^[3]

In court filings, the watchdog group warned that as long as the fund’s founding documents stay in place, “nothing stops” officials from quickly moving almost $1.8 billion from the Judgment Fund into a “Designated Account” and then paying “whomever they want under a shroud of secrecy.”^[1] They called the deal “the single most corrupt act of self-dealing by any administration in American history,” pointing to the link between Trump’s personal lawsuit and the new payout system.^[1]^[5] The judge did not endorse that harsh label, but allowed broader challenges to continue.

DOJ Says the Fund Is Off – But Courts Are Skeptical

Facing lawsuits in Washington, Virginia, and Florida, the Justice Department has shifted its position in recent weeks.^[1]^[2]^[4] In new briefs, DOJ lawyers now claim there is no live dispute because the fund “had not been set up and is now not going forward,” and they urge judges to dismiss the cases as moot and nonjusticiable.^[1] Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told Congress, “We are not moving forward with the fund, period,” stressing that no commissioners or claimants were ever in place.^[2]

Trump DOJ Tells Court Controversial $1.7 Billion ‘Anti-Weaponization Fund’ Will Not Move Forward, Seeks Dismissal of Legal Challenges https://t.co/AjpdAzNIcN

— AmericanLawReporter (@AmericanLawRep) June 11, 2026

The judge’s “play possum” warning shows courts are not eager to let DOJ escape review simply by calling the project dead on arrival while leaving key documents intact.^[1] Other judges have already issued temporary orders blocking any money transfers into the fund while they study whether the Judgment Fund can lawfully be used this way.^[3]^[4] One legal scholar noted that the Obama-era Keepseagle settlement used the Judgment Fund to create a large compensation program, but there Congress later pushed back, and critics say the Anti-Weaponization Fund goes even further.^[3]^[5]

What This Fight Means for Conservatives and the Constitution

For conservatives, this battle is about much more than one Trump-era program. It goes to who controls the nation’s wallet: elected lawmakers or unelected officials crafting secretive funds through settlements.^[3]^[5] If the Judgment Fund can quietly bankroll a cause one year, it can bankroll a woke agenda or climate slush fund the next, all without a single up-or-down vote in Congress.^[3] That should alarm anyone who cares about limited government and the separation of powers.

At the same time, many on the right see real value in exposing how federal law enforcement was weaponized against political opponents under the Biden years and want genuine victims made whole.^[1]^[5] The judge’s ruling keeps the legal questions alive and pressures the Trump Justice Department to choose: fully dismantle the Anti-Weaponization Fund on paper, or defend it openly on the merits. Either way, this fight is forcing long-overdue sunlight on how Washington moves billions of dollars behind closed doors—and whether future administrations can ever do the same.