The Trump administration has informed a federal court that the controversial proposed $1.7 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” does not exist and will not be created, arguing that ongoing legal challenges against the initiative should therefore be dismissed.
In a court filing submitted Friday, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) told U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema that the much-debated fund was never established and is no longer under consideration. According to the DOJ, statements made earlier this week by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche confirming the fund would not proceed are legally binding.
“As the fund does not exist and will not exist,” government attorneys argued, the lawsuits challenging it no longer present a live legal controversy.
The filing stated: “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.”
DOJ: Political Debate, Not a Judicial Matter
While asserting that the fund is effectively dead, the Justice Department also defended the broader political process surrounding the controversy.
The filing characterized the public dispute over the proposed fund as part of normal democratic debate and argued that courts should not intervene in what it described as a political issue.
“The Fund has been the subject of vigorous public debate,” the DOJ wrote. “That process may seem messy. But the push-and-pull of such debate is a feature of our constitutional republic.”
The administration’s position seeks to end litigation that emerged after details of the fund became public and drew criticism from legal scholars, former judges, and government watchdogs.
Origins in Trump’s IRS Settlement
The controversy stems from a May 18 settlement resolving a $10 billion lawsuit filed by President Donald Trump against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Treasury Department.
Trump’s lawsuit arose from the unauthorized disclosure of his tax returns by former IRS contractor Charles Littlejohn, who was convicted for leaking confidential tax information.
As part of the settlement, provisions referenced the creation of the Anti-Weaponization Fund, sparking questions about its purpose, funding, and legal authority.
The settlement also contained sweeping language releasing and discharging potential claims involving Trump-related parties. Legal observers noted that the agreement’s wording extended broadly across the Trump family, Trump-affiliated entities, and various trusts.
Retired Judges Continue to Raise Concerns
Despite the DOJ’s declaration that the fund will not proceed, critics argue that the underlying legal issues remain unresolved.
On May 27, a coalition of 35 retired federal judges filed a motion under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, asking the court to reopen the settlement and scrutinize its terms.
Among them were former U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner and retired Fourth Circuit Judge J. Michael Luttig, both of whom publicly questioned whether the administration’s latest position eliminates concerns surrounding the agreement.
The judges argued that terminating the fund does not automatically address broader questions about the legality and structure of the settlement itself.
According to their statements, the court should continue examining the matter regardless of whether the proposed fund ultimately exists.
What Happens Next?
Judge Brinkema must now determine whether the DOJ’s declaration renders the lawsuits legally moot or whether concerns surrounding the settlement warrant further judicial review.
The decision could have implications beyond the proposed fund itself, potentially shaping how courts handle disputes involving government settlements that are later altered or abandoned amid public controversy.
For now, the Trump administration maintains that because the Anti-Weaponization Fund “has not been created, and will not be created,” the legal fight challenging it should come to an end.
