Justice Department Abandons Anti-Weaponization Fund Plans

During a House Appropriations Committee hearing on Tuesday, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche announced that the Department of Justice will discontinue efforts to create an anti-weaponization fund.

This decision follows a preliminary injunction from a federal judge that halted the fund’s establishment, stemming from a legal dispute between President Donald Trump and the Internal Revenue Service. Blanche noted that a hearing regarding the fund’s legal basis, originally set for June 12, has been canceled.

“We are not moving forward with plans for the fund,” Blanche stated. He further explained that the fund was conceived to address concerns voiced by Trump about many individuals in the country having government access to arms. Although he believes the need for such a fund remains significant, no steps will be taken to advance it.

Previously announced in mid-May, the Anti-Weaponization Fund was intended to provide compensation to individuals—regardless of political alignment—who claimed to be victims of legal actions from the previous administration. It was part of a settlement with the IRS regarding the disclosure of Trump’s tax returns.

Instead of straightforward compensation, the plan proposed a $1.776 billion fund, which was to be managed by a five-member board appointed by Blanche. Critics labeled it a “slush fund,” arguing it would primarily benefit Trump and his allies.

Blanche mentioned that no actions have been initiated to set up the fund while the lawsuits are still ongoing. So far, three legal challenges have been launched against it.

One significant lawsuit was filed by Democracy Forward, which contended that the DOJ improperly utilized the Federal Judiciary Fund, designated for federal court judgments and settlements, to create a new reparations program without Congressional approval. In response, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema issued a temporary restraining order on May 29, suspending the program pending further review.

In her ruling, Brinkema recognized substantial legal questions regarding whether the executive branch can independently create and fund such a program without Congressional consent. She expressed concerns that allowing the fund to proceed could lead to taxpayer dollars being disbursed before legal scrutiny had fully been exercised.

The Justice Department has yet to clarify whether it plans to formally dissolve the fund, withdraw related requests, or seek to dismiss ongoing lawsuits following Blanche’s announcement.