1 hour ago
5
The US Justice Department has officially pulled the plug on its controversial $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund, a settlement-derived pot of money that critics on both sides of the aisle had labeled a potential slush fund for political allies. The fund lasted roughly one month before legal challenges, congressional fury, and a federal injunction made its survival untenable.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche made the call definitive on June 2, 2026. “We are not moving forward with the fund, period,” Blanche stated, putting a decisive end to what had become one of the more unusual legal experiments in recent DOJ history.
How the fund came to exist, and how it fell apart
The Anti-Weaponization Fund was born out of the settlement in Trump v. IRS, a lawsuit in which former President Donald Trump alleged unauthorized disclosure of his tax returns. As part of the deal, Trump dropped his lawsuit in exchange for the creation of this fund, along with certain protections from the IRS going forward.
A five-member commission appointed by the DOJ would review applications from individuals who claimed they had been damaged by federal government actions they categorized as “weaponization” or “lawfare.” The commission had until December 1, 2028, to process claims, and any unused money would revert to the government.
The commission operated under restricted transparency requirements, meaning public visibility into who was getting paid, and why, would have been limited. Critics immediately raised concerns that the fund could be used to compensate defendants from the January 6 Capitol riots or other Trump allies who had faced federal prosecution. The term “slush fund” appeared in statements from both Democratic and Republican lawmakers.
Legal challenges materialized almost immediately. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and Common Cause filed suits to block the fund. A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order in late May, halting any payouts before they could begin.
Federal Judge Leonie Brinkema extended the injunction on June 12, 2026, going a step further by requiring the DOJ to submit proof that the fund had actually been abandoned, under penalty of perjury.
The congressional oversight problem
When the DOJ settles a lawsuit, the resulting financial arrangements don’t always go through the same congressional appropriations process that governs most federal spending. The fund drew on resources from the Treasury’s Judgment Fund without the necessity of new congressional approval, meaning billions of dollars were allocated with relatively little legislative input.
Members from both parties questioned whether the DOJ had the authority to create a compensation mechanism of this scale outside the normal appropriations process.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
English (US) · 