In a written submission, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) on Friday told US District Judge Leonie Brinkema that the much-criticized “Anti-Weaponization Fund” has not been created, and will not be going forward. Further, they argued that as the fund does not exist, the lawsuits against the federal government are moot.
The submissions argue that Acting US Attorney General Todd Blanche’s statements on Tuesday are legally binding. “In light of the Acting Attorney General’s statements to Congress on June 2, 2026, Plaintiffs’ claims are ‘no longer embedded in any actual controversy about the plaintiffs’ particular legal rights,” the brief stated.
Despite asserting that the fund does not and will never exist, the submission also makes claims about the validity of the lawsuits, asserting that the courts should not interject themselves into a “political process.” The statement reads “the Fund has been the subject of vigorous public debate. That process may seem messy. But the push-and-pull of such debate is a feature of our constitutional republic.”
The Anti-Weaponization Fund was created as part of a May 18 settlement between President Donald Trump and the Internal Revenue Service. The settlement resolved a $10 billion lawsuit Trump filed against the IRS and Treasury over the leak of his tax returns by former IRS contractor Charles Littlejohn. Part of that same order, which establishes the fund, reads that the Department of Justice, “RELEASES, WAIVES, ACQUITS, and FOREVER DISCHARGES” each of the plaintiffs from any claim that has been or could have been asserted against them. JURIST’s Editorial Director noted that the language of this order reaches the entire Trump family, every Trump entity, and every Trump trust.
On May 27, a group of 35 retired federal judges filed a motion under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requesting the original settlement with the IRS to be reopened. Two of those judges, US District Judge Nancy Gertner and Fourth Circuit Judge J. Michael Luttig, said Tuesday that even if the fund is fully terminated, that “in no way obviates the concerns that Judge Williams has raised,” and urged the court to “continue its inquiry.”