A federal choose in Virginia on Friday briefly blocked the Division of Justice from taking any additional motion to create or disburse cash from its so-called Anti-Weaponization Fund as one in every of three lawsuits difficult it proceeds.
Decide Leonie Brinkema stated she would maintain a listening to on June 12 in U.S. District Courtroom in Alexandria on whether or not to take care of the injunction in opposition to the DOJ’s $1.8 billion fund.
Appearing Lawyer Basic Todd Blanche earlier this month stated he was creating that fund as a part of a settlement of a $10 billion lawsuit by President Donald Trump in opposition to the Inner Income Service for the leak of his tax data by an IRS worker. Blanche is Trump’s former felony protection lawyer.
Hours after Brinkema’s order a choose overseeing a lawsuit difficult the fund in Washington, D.C., federal court docket scheduled a listening to for Wednesday on the request by the advocacy group Residents for Duty and Ethics in Washington to difficulty a short lived restraining order that will block the DOJ’s fund from working as that go well with performs out.
The fund is supposed to compensate individuals who allege they have been the victims of prosecutorial overreach by the DOJ below the Biden administration, which they and Trump have known as “lawfare.”
Critics have known as it a “slush fund” for Trump allies, together with individuals who participated within the Jan. 6, 2021, riot on the U.S. Capitol.
One of many plaintiffs within the lawsuit, who on Thursday had requested Brinkema for the injunction and expedited briefing on blocking the fund, is Andrew Floyd, a former federal prosecutor who stated he was fired final yr for his work prosecuting Jan. 6 defendants.
US President Donald Trump seems to be on throughout a press convention concerning the battle in Iran within the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room of the White Home on April 6, 2026, in Washington, DC.
Saul Loeb | Afp | Getty Photographs
The opposite plaintiffs are Jonathan Caravello, a college professor who stated he was baselessly arrested in 2025 whereas protesting an immigration raid in California, and town of New Haven, which the Trump administration sued for appearing as a so-called sanctuary metropolis for immigrants.
Brinkema, in her order, enjoined the DOJ from “taking any additional motion pursuant to the creation or operation of the Anti-Weaponization Fund, which incorporates the transferring of cash to the Fund; the consideration of any claims submitted to the Fund; and the disbursing of any funds from the Fund.”
Brinkema, in a pointed footnote in her order, wrote, “It is crucial that the established order be maintained till plaintiffs’ pending Movement has been resolved.”
Brinkema stated that was “particularly” necessary as a result of the plaintiffs had alleged that DOJ’s legal professionals have been “‘unable … to supply assurances of how lengthy [the] establishment would final’ and declined plaintiffs’ request that the federal government decide to not transferring cash to the Fund or processing or paying claims till no less than June 19 to permit for much less compressed briefing on this case.”
A lot of Trump allies have already stated they need compensation from the fund.
“The Division stays extraordinarily assured within the legality of the Anti-Weaponization Fund which is supported by ample precedent, together with Obama-era settlements,” a DOJ spokesperson stated in an announcement. “We is not going to enable the coverage preferences of judges to intervene with our efforts to supply restitution to victims of lawfare.”
Senate Minority Chief Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., in a submit Friday on X stated, “Of all Trump’s corrupt schemes, his insurrectionist slush fund is among the most wicked.”
“This ruling is a vital win — however the battle is way from over,” Schumer wrote. “Democrats will hold preventing within the courts and in Congress to ensure this $2 billion giveaway to cop beaters, criminals, and MAGA cronies by no means sees the sunshine of day.
— CNBC’s Kevin Breuninger contributed to this text.
Correction: The opposite plaintiffs are Jonathan Caravello, a college professor who stated he was baselessly arrested in 2025 whereas protesting an immigration raid in California. An earlier model misstated the circumstances of Caravello’s arrest.
