There is a certain courtroom scene that lawyers dread. A government attorney assures a judge that something is no longer happening, only to be asked a simple follow-up question: if that is true, why has nobody put it in writing? That question hovered over Friday’s hearing involving Trump’s $1.8 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund, and it created a difficult afternoon for the administration.
The fund itself grew out of Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS over leaked tax records. That case ended with a $1.776 billion settlement, with the money earmarked for people who claim they were victims of what Trump and his allies describe as “weaponization and lawfare.” Interest in the program emerged almost immediately after its creation in May, with several January 6 defendants and Trump allies indicating they planned to seek money from it.
That rapid interest helped bring the issue into court.
Judge Leonie Brinkema froze the program on May 29 while legal challenges moved forward. Friday’s hearing was expected to determine whether the freeze would be lifted or remain in place. By the end of the day, the answer was clear.
Stay up-to-date with the latest news!
Subscribe and start recieving our daily emails.
The freeze remains.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche had already told both Congress and the court that the fund was not moving forward. Justice Department lawyer Andrew Block repeated that position during Friday’s hearing and argued that the case was effectively moot.
Brinkema was not persuaded. She pointed out that none of those assurances had been provided under oath. “That means the issue really is not moot,” she said, noting that Trump’s own public comments supporting the fund after Blanche’s testimony made it even harder to accept the argument that the program had quietly disappeared.
As the hearing continued, the questions became increasingly uncomfortable for the government.
Brinkema asked why Blanche had not simply rescinded the May 18 order creating the fund if the administration truly intended to abandon it. Block replied that he had never discussed that question with Blanche personally.
That answer did not seem to improve the government’s position.
Brinkema said that, given the importance of the case, she found it difficult to believe the issue had never been raised with the acting attorney general. She described the communication gap as a significant weakness in the administration’s argument.
Block also pointed out that no commissioners had been appointed to oversee the fund. That argument received little traction as well.
The judge appeared equally troubled by where the money could eventually go.
She described it as “problematic” that nearly $1.8 billion in taxpayer funds could potentially be distributed to people convicted in connection with the January 6 Capitol attack. She also read portions of an amicus brief submitted by an unusual bipartisan pair, Senators Cory Booker and Bill Cassidy, who warned that the fund represented an “immediate and dire threat” to the constitutional order.
For Brinkema, the public interest considerations pointed strongly in one direction.
She said they weighed “very, very strong” in favor of the plaintiffs challenging the program.
Featured image via Political Tribune Gallery
