ALEXANDRIA, Va. — Department of Justice lawyers have asked U.S. District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema to dismiss a case connected to the Trump administration’s $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” arguing that Attorney General Todd Blanche issued a formal recission order in August and has affirmed many times, including under oath before Congress, that the fund is dead.
However, Brinkema seemed skeptical Friday.
“The issues that underlie this case are still alive and kicking in my view,” Brinkema said.
“The real concern that lurks … is the concept of taxpayer money being used to promote particular political views,” Brinkema said, pointing to pro-life activists convicted of violating the FACE Act and others who attempted an “insurrection” on Jan. 6 “to overthrow the legitimate election.”
CLINTON JUDGE INDEFINITELY BLOCKS TRUMP’S $1.776B ANTI-WEAPONIZATION FUND
“That entity is gone,” said Brinkema, referring to the Anti-Weaponization Fund and agreeing that Blanche has said under oath at his confirmation hearings that the fund is dead.
“But is there a functional equivalent?” Brinkema said, referring to the DOJ’s ordinary Judgment Fund authority.
The Judgment Fund is a permanent U.S. Treasury account managed by the Bureau of the Fiscal Service that pays court judgments and DOJ legal settlements against the federal government. Brinkema called that fund “a less transparent structure” and suggested that some defendants convicted of FACE Act crimes have already received large payouts from the DOJ’s Judgment Fund.
JUDGE TEMPORARILY BLOCKS TRUMP DOJ’S NEARLY $2B ‘ANTI-WEAPONIZATION’ FUND
Here, Brinkema affirmed she was talking about the case of Paul Vaughn.
Vaugh, of Centerville, Tennessee, was convicted in January 2024 for his role in blockading an abortion clinic in Mount Juliet, Tennessee, in March 2021. Vaughn ultimately received a pardon and a taxpayer-funded payout from the DOJ’s Judgment Fund that confirmed to Fox News is “seven figures.”
DOJ lawyer Andrew Block asked what remedy the plaintiff wants, given “the fund is dead.”
Brinkema countered that although the case is nowhere near the remedy stage, “I think there are remedies.” She brought up the possibility of requiring a “neutral” person to oversee a fund, “not someone from the DOJ, which I see unfortunately as coerced” in this matter.
“A proper, unbiased look. … There’s been too much talk from members of the administration, which undercut [DOJ’s] position,” Brinkema said. “They contradict themselves all the time.”
Brinkema closed the hearing by telling both sides she intends to craft a new discovery order in the coming days, suggesting this case is far from over.
