The Justice Department says the disputed anti-weaponization fund is dead. The fight now is whether a courtroom promise is enough when challengers say the paperwork still leaves the fund alive.
U.S. District Judge Richard Leon refused to block the Justice Department’s $1.776 billion fund on Wednesday, June 10, 2026, but the Republican-appointed judge warned Todd Blanche not to “play possum” as DOJ argued the program was already dead.
The federal court fight now turns on whether Blanche’s assurance that DOJ is not moving forward with the fund is enough to defeat lawsuits, even while formal documents remain in place. For the Trump administration, the ruling avoided an immediate temporary restraining order. For DOJ, it also turned Blanche’s words into a credibility test.
A narrow win, not clearance
Leon declined to issue the temporary restraining order sought by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, the watchdog group that sued over the fund. According to CBS News, CREW called the fund “brazenly illegal.”
That denial gave the government relief in the moment. It did not amount to a sweeping endorsement of the fund or a final ruling that the challengers had no case.
The distinction matters because Leon said he would separately address CREW’s request for a preliminary injunction. In other words, DOJ avoided an immediate block, but the litigation did not disappear.
The judge accepted, for now, the government’s representation that Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche had already declared the fund dead. Then came the warning: “Don’t play possum with this court.”
Blanche’s assurance carries the case
DOJ’s courtroom position rests heavily on Blanche’s statement during congressional testimony that the department is “not moving forward with the fund.” The government used that assurance to argue there was no live controversy for a court to stop.
In legal terms, DOJ argued that the case was moot, that the challengers lacked standing and that the dispute was not ripe for review. Put plainly: if the department is not using the fund, DOJ says there is nothing for a judge to block.
That is why Blanche is now central to the case. His statement is not just political messaging; it is doing legal work for the Justice Department.
Leon’s warning signals that the court is willing to rely on DOJ’s representation only so far. If the department later changes course, revives the fund or keeps it available while insisting it is dead, the judge has already put down a marker.
The fund’s political origins
The disputed program has drawn attention because of its size and purpose. CBS described it as a $1.776 billion anti-weaponization fund intended to pay claims to alleged victims of government persecution.
The fund was unveiled after President Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax returns. Critics, including Democrats, described it as a potential “slush fund” for Trump allies.
CBS reported that the plan drew bipartisan pressure before Blanche said DOJ would not move forward with it. That pressure is part of why the fund’s status matters: the government’s current position is that the most controversial parts of the plan are not happening, but challengers say the legal machinery remains in place.
The questions around the fund are basic but significant. Who would review claims? What rules would govern payments? Who would receive money? Those questions remain politically charged because the fund was tied from the start to claims of government persecution.
No board, no claims, no payments
DOJ attorney Andrew Block told the court that no five-person board had been appointed, no processes had been adopted, no claims had been submitted and no money had been paid out.
Those facts helped the government argue that the dispute was premature. If a program has no board, no procedures and no payments, DOJ’s argument goes, judicial intervention would be unnecessary at this stage.
CREW’s side focused on a different point: formal authority. CBS reported that CREW lawyer Nikhel Sus argued the fund’s charter remained “in full force and effect” and that changes had to be made in writing by all parties.
That is the heart of the fight. DOJ says the fund is effectively over because the department says it is not moving forward. The challengers say a verbal or testimonial assurance is not the same thing as formally rescinding the policy.
Why judges care about candor
Leon’s “play possum” line landed in a broader dispute over DOJ’s credibility in politically sensitive cases. The warning was pointed because courts often rely on government lawyers’ representations when deciding whether litigation should continue.
There is also political pressure around that credibility question. In a July 14 letter to Blanche, House Judiciary Committee Democrats accused DOJ lawyers and the Trump administration of defying court orders and misleading judges “in case after case.”
That letter came from the Democratic side of the committee, not from a judge. Still, it shows that DOJ’s courtroom conduct has become part of a larger partisan and institutional fight.
The source record also points to a separate formal judicial warning. In Lnu v. Blanche, a June 3 Ninth Circuit order said the court was issuing a disciplinary order “as a warning to the members of this Court’s bar.” That case was separate from the anti-weaponization fund, but it underscores the same expectation: government lawyers must be precise and candid with courts.
What remains unsettled
The immediate question is not whether Leon accepted Blanche’s representation on June 10. For the temporary restraining order, he largely did.
The harder question is what happens if the fund’s documents remain active while DOJ keeps saying the program is inactive. That is where the case could become more consequential for the department’s broader legal battles.
DOJ’s strongest position is practical: courts should not block a fund with no board, no rules, no claims and no payments. The challengers’ strongest position is institutional: the government should not be able to avoid review by promising not to use a policy it has not formally revoked.
Leon’s ruling keeps both arguments alive. The judge did not shut the fund down at that hearing, but he also did not give DOJ a blank check. Blanche’s assurance may have bought the Justice Department time; it also made the department accountable for what happens next.
Leave a Reply