The Justice Department declined Friday to file sworn declarations that the $1.8 billion "anti-weaponization" fund will not proceed, saying such a requirement was unnecessary and raised separation of powers concerns.
U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema gave Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent a week to file written, sworn declarations that the program would not move forward before she would agree to dismiss a lawsuit seeking to block the fund permanently.
"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 in a Friday filing.
Brinkema pointed to testimony from Blanche and to a later public statement by President Donald Trump that he wanted to move forward with the fund as reasons to doubt the department's assertions and to request sworn declarations.
The DOJ in May announced it was creating the fund as part of a settlement of President Donald Trump's $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax records by an IRS contractor.
The department described the program as a $1.776 billion effort to "provide a systematic process to hear and redress claims of others who suffered weaponization and lawfare," and the plan drew backlash from Republicans on Capitol Hill who raised concerns that people involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol could receive payouts.
Brinkema granted a preliminary injunction that blocks the Justice Department from taking any action to create or operate the program, and the injunction remains in place.
The lawsuit before Brinkema was filed by a former prosecutor, the city of New Haven, Common Cause and the National Abortion Federation; other legal challenges have been brought in Washington, D.C., and California, and in one D.C. case a federal judge declined to temporarily halt operation of the fund.
"It is telling that even after the federal court gave them a week, the Acting Attorney General and other senior administration officials continue to refuse to say under oath that the Slush Fund is dead and won't operate in the future," Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, which is representing the plaintiffs, said in a statement.
In a post on X, the DOJ pointed to its prior filings and Blanche's congressional testimony and said, "In essence, the judge's demand for declarations was an attempt to require her to personally sign-off on any and all future settlements, separate from this non-existent Fund, that the department may make. Judges do not get to insert themselves into the department's routine settlement authority."