A federal judge in Alexandria, Virginia, has indefinitely extended a block on the Trump administration's $1.8 billion settlement fund, called the Anti-Weaponization Fund. U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema rejected government claims that the legal challenge is moot, noting that President Donald Trump has not publicly disavowed the fund and the original order establishing it remains unrevoked. The ruling follows a temporary block issued May 29, which was set to expire Friday, according to the source article.

Judge Brinkema’s Demand for a Sworn Declaration

Brinkema gave the parties one week to negotiate an agreement under which Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche would submit a sworn declaration that the administration will not revive the fund. The judge refused to lift the block based solely on Blanche's verbal assurances to Congress that the fund is being scrapped. As the report notes, plaintiffs' attorneys pointed to Trump's continued expressions of support for the fund and the absence of any formal rescission of the May 18 order that created it.

The source article states that the Justice Department attorney could not answer why Blanche has not formally rescinded the original order, a gap Brinkema called "huge." This lack of a legally binding commitment drivves the court's insistence on a sworn statement — a rare step that signals deep judicial skepticism.

Two Judges, Two Rulings on the Same $1.8 Billion Fund

The case has produced a split among federal judges. While Brinkema refused to lift the block, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon in Washington, D.C., rejected a separate request from a government watchdog for a temporary restraining order, accepting Blanche's representation that the fund is now moot. However, according to the source article, Leon himself asked a Justice Department attorney why Blanche doesn't formally rescind the order — the same question Brinkema posed two days later.

This dual-track outcome leaves the fund in legal limbo: blocked in Virginia but not in D.C., with neither judge fully satisfied by the administration's word alone. The conflicting rulings underscore the uncertainty surrounding the fund's status and the broader legal quuestions about executive unilateralism.

Why Trump’s Silence Fuels Judicial Skepticism

A key driver of the court's distrust is President Trump's ambiguous public stance. the source article notes that Trump has not made an unequivocal statement endorsing cancellation of the fund and has continued to express support for it. this matters because the fund was originally established to settle Trump's own lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax returns,and plaintiffs — including a fired prosecutor and a college professor acquitted of assaulting federal agents at a protest — argue it's a "slush fund" to compensate Trump's allies.

The report also points to Trump's history of mass pardons for January 6 Capitol rioters, suggesting that such individuals might have been eligible for payments under the fund's broad framing. without a clear public disavowal from the president, the administration's intentions remain opaque, leaving the court to question whether the fund could be revived after the legal challenge dissipates.

The Missing Formal Order That Haunts the Case

Throughout the proceedings, both judges pressed the Justice Department on why the May 18 order creating the fund hasn't been formally revoked. The department attorney had no answer, according to the sourcce. This lack of documentary closure undermines the government's claim of mootess: if the order technically remains in effect, the fund could theoretically be reactivated at any time.

As the source article reports, the Justice Department had not even formed the five-member commission required to decide payout criteria, meaning no money was paid out. Yet the legal infrastructure remains. The court's demand for a sworn declaration is a workaround — a judicial attempt to impose personal accountability on the acting attorney general, since the administration has taken no structural step to dismantle the fund on paper.