For the first time, the department pledged in writing that plans for the fund, which became the subject of multiple legal challenges, had been dropped.
Read more Trump says he’s considering government stake in top AI companies
Justice Department lawyers Friday did what acting attorney general Todd Blanche earlier this week would not — state, in writing, that President Donald Trump’s proposed “Anti-Weaponization Fund” is dead.
Blanche told members of Congress this week that plans for the nearly $1.8 billion payout fund, which has fueled controversy and become the subject of multiple legal challenges, had been scrapped, but he resisted calls to put that in writing.
Yet in legal filings submitted in federal courts in D.C. and Virginia on Friday evening, government lawyers plainly stated the fund has “not been set up and is now not going forward.”
They also argued that any judicial intervention at this stage would amount to the courts inserting themselves in a “political debate.”
“That process may seem messy,” Justice Department lawyer Andrew J. Block wrote. “But the push-and-pull of such debate is a feature of our constitutional republic.”
Plans for the fund emerged as part of a highly unusual deal struck last month between Justice Department lawyers and Trump’s personal attorneys to resolve three legal claims the president had filed against the government in his personal capacity. The claims included a suit he and family members had filed against the IRS over the leak of their tax returns.
But the idea quickly drew legal challenges in D.C., Virginia and California. It also ignited bipartisan backlash on Capitol Hill, including a remarkable revolt among some Republicans that threatened to endanger other parts of the president’s agenda in Congress.
Several lawmakers raised concerns that the fund might be used to offer payouts to participants in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, including those convicted of assaulting police. Others derided it as a “slush fund” set up so that Trump could reward his political allies with limited government scrutiny.
In the face of that furor, Blanche told lawmakers Tuesday that the administration was scuttling its plans for the fund.
“We are not moving forward with the fund, period,” he said. But Blanche resisted calls to put that pledge in writing, saying he didn’t see a reason to do so.
That reluctance set off a new wave of confusion. Some senators, unsure if they could take Blanche at his word, called for legislation to explicitly forbid the type of fund envisioned by Trump’s settlement deal. But the Senate on Thursday shot down several amendments that would have restricted future Trump administration efforts to create similar funds.
Trump himself has expressed some uncertainty in recent days as to whether the plan was truly dead and praised the fund after Blanche’s remarks.
“I’d have to ask the lawyers. I don’t know,” he told reporters at the White House on Wednesday. “The weaponization fund, as far as I’m concerned, was a beautiful thing.”
In a court filing Thursday, Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-Louisiana) and Cory Booker (D-New Jersey) described the proposed fund as a “threat to our constitutional democracy.” They urged U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema, who is overseeing one of the cases challenging the fund, to move forward with a full inquiry on its legality despite Blanche’s assertions to Congress earlier in the week.
Read more 5 takeaways from the grueling Senate funding battle that just ended
“The anti-weaponization fund constitutes an improper and unconstitutional transfer of taxpayer dollars, including to those who engaged in a violent insurrection against the United States and its democratically elected representatives — including the United States Senate — on Jan. 6, 2021,” the senators wrote. “It entirely bypasses Congress’s crucial role under the Appointments Clause in determining who may wield authority as an officer of the United States.”
Brinkema, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, issued an order last week temporarily barring the Trump administration from moving forward with its plans for the fund until a June 12 hearing she has scheduled in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, to hear further arguments from both sides.
The case she is overseeing was filed by Andrew Floyd, a former federal prosecutor who was fired by the Justice Department over his work on several cases against Jan. 6 defendants, and other plaintiffs who say they have been politically targeted by the Trump administration.
They maintain the fund has been unfairly designed to benefit only those who claim they were victimized by Democratic administrations.
Their suit is one of several pending judicial inquiries that could result in a federal court ruling on the fund in the coming weeks.
In a separate case, filed in Washington, two police officers are also seeking to block the fund, contending it will enrich and embolden Jan. 6 rioters who have subjected them to death threats and harassment.
The judge overseeing that suit and other challenges filed in D.C. — U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon, an appointee of President George W. Bush — has scheduled a hearing for Wednesday.
In both cases, several people have petitioned the judge to preserve the fund, saying they have rightful claims related to alleged whistleblower retaliation or wrongful prosecution.
Meanwhile, the judge in Miami who oversaw Trump’s suit against the IRS has signaled she, too, still has questions.
U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams, an appointee of President Barack Obama, did not sign off on the agreement between Trump and the Justice Department that would have created the fund.
The president dropped the case and struck the deal outside court after Williams had raised questions about the propriety of Trump’s influence over both his personal attorneys in the case and the government lawyers who would purportedly have argued on behalf of the IRS but ultimately report to him as president.
When Williams agreed to dismiss the case, she noted that Trump’s motion to drop it did not refer to any settlement and added that “there is no settlement of record.”
Williams has asked government attorneys to respond by next week to her questions over whether the deal they struck constituted an end-run around the court’s authority.
Read more Bears sign safety Dillon Thieneman and center Logan Jones ahead of minicamp
This is a developing story and will be updated.
