Judge denies watchdog group's request to block 'Anti-Weaponization Fund'

A federal judge on Wednesday denied a governmental watchdog group's request for a temporary restraining order to block the Trump administration's controversial $1.8 billion "Anti-Weaponization Fund."

The group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, argued in court that the TRO was necessary despite recent statements from Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche that the fund is "not going forward."

Nikhel Sus, an attorney for CREW, argued that the government could still proceed with the fund because the Justice Department has not formally rescinded the May 18 settlement agreement that established the fund. He also called Blanche's recent congressional testimony on the fund "not valid."

Sus said the fund was "illegally created" and "deliberately structured to operate with maximum secrecy."

When U.S. District Judge Richard Leon pressed the government on why it had not rescinded the agreement, a senior DOJ attorney couldn't say.

"I don't know," said Andrew Block, senior counsel to the associate attorney general. "All I know is that the AG has said the fund is not moving forward."

Judge Leon denied CREW's request from the bench, ruling that the watchdog group failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success. He also pointed to the government's "multiple representations" in court filings and public statements that DOJ is not moving forward with the fund.

Before concluding the hearing, however, Judge Leon said he had a warning for the government.

"Don't play possum with this court," he said.

Lawyers for CREW, in a court filing last Thursday, had argued that "So long as the Fund's charter documents remain in effect, nothing stops Defendants from illegally siphoning, at any given moment, nearly $1.8 billion in taxpayer dollars from the Treasury's Judgment Fund to an unidentified 'Designated Account' and rapidly disbursing those funds to whomever they want under a shroud of secrecy, in violation of the Constitution and multiple federal transparency and funding statutes."

Attorneys for CREW highlighted Trump's statements -- including his claim that Jan. 6 defendants "should be reimbursed for a crooked government" -- to argue that the Department of Justice may not abandon the fund.

"There is ample reason to be skeptical of Defendants' representations. Through their sham settlement of Trump v. IRS and unlawful creation of the Fund, Defendants conducted what may be the single most corrupt act of self-dealing by any administration in American history," they argued.

Lawyers with the Department of Justice have argued that the case is now moot, writing in a court filing that they would not move forward with the fund.

"The equities and the public interest do not favor this Court interjecting itself in a political process to shut down a Fund that never got off the ground and is not going forward," DOJ attorneys wrote.

With President Donald Trump continuing to defend the fund and calling for those charged in connection with the Jan. 6 Capitol attack to be compensated, attorneys for another coalition of plaintiffs have asked a federal judge in Virginia to issue orders formally blocking the creation of the compensation fund.

"If it was up to me, I'd pay them the kind of money that they deserve. People have been destroyed. Lives have been destroyed," Trump said during an interview with NBC's Meet the Press that aired over the weekend.

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema is set to hold a hearing later this week, two weeks after issuing a temporary order barring the Trump administration from creating or transferring money into the fund.

The fund, which was announced by the DOJ to compensate those who allege they were wrongly targeted under the Biden administration, was proposed in exchange for Trump agreeing to drop his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS as well as two civil claims for $230 million related to the Russia collusion investigation he faced during his first term in office and the 2022 search of his Mar-a-Lago estate -- sparking accusations of self-dealing and a bipartisan uproar over the possible use of taxpayer money to pay rioters who attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

A separate judge in Florida is also reexamining the agreement that led to the proposed fund, as well as a provision protecting Trump and his family from IRS audits.

Last month, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams launched an inquiry into the lawsuit that led to the settlement after a group of 35 former federal judges argued the case was a "product of collusion and is itself a fraud on the Court." Judge Williams ordered attorneys for Trump to respond to the allegations by Friday.