Todd Blanche could've killed the story with a signature. Instead, President Donald Trump's acting attorney general handed critics a fresh reason to keep asking whether the Anti-Weaponization Fund is really dead.
U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema gave Blanche, Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward Jr. and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent one week to file a sworn declaration saying they wouldn't create or operate the fund “in any manner, or under any name.” From CBS News:
Brinkema said last week that "to avoid any further litigation," the senior officials should file the declaration under penalty of perjury that the "anti-weaponization" program wouldn't proceed "in any manner, or under any name." She also granted a preliminary injunction that blocks the Justice Department from taking any action to create or operate the program, which remains in place.
The judge warned that if the administration opted not to file the declaration, the lawsuit brought by a coalition that includes two nonprofits and a former federal prosecutor would move forward.
Juneteenth is the deadline, and the DOJ declined, calling the request unnecessary and warning that compelled testimony from senior executive officials raised separation of powers concerns.
The fund began as part of a settlement of President Donald J. Trump v. Internal Revenue Service. The DOJ announced it on May 18 as a $1.776 billion process for people who claimed they had suffered from “weaponization and lawfare.”
The money would come from the judgment fund, which lets the DOJ settle and pay claims. A five-member board picked by the attorney general would've handled the claims, and the president could remove any member.
That setup caused an uproar because it looked too easy to turn taxpayer money into payouts for political allies. Blanche later told Congress that the fund was “not going forward, period.”
DOJ lawyers repeated the same argument in court, telling them that their position is simple: no board, no claims process, no payments, and no live case. From ABC:
The DOJ's refusal comes after a federal judge last week gave the administration seven days to verify in a declaration that it wouldn't create the controversial fund.
"Such declarations are unnecessary and the compelled testimony of senior officials from the Executive Branch implicates serious separation of powers concerns," the DOJ said in a court filing Friday to U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, who last week issued an injunction indefinitely blocking the administration from creating the fund.
Brinkema had given the Trump administration seven days to verify in a declaration from acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent that it wouldn't create the fund, which she said would likely lead to the dismissal of the lawsuit she was overseeing against the fund.
But in their filing Friday, the department argued that Brinkema's offer was a potentially unconstitutional infringement of the executive branch by effectively requiring "testimony" of top officials on a matter that the administration has repeatedly said would not be moving forward.
Brinkema wasn't satisfied; she had already blocked the government from creating or operating the fund while the lawsuit moves ahead, noting that the DOJ's assurances weren't under penalty of perjury, and she questioned why Blanche hadn't simply rescinded the May 18 order that created the fund.
When a judge asks whether a $1.776 billion program is dead, “trust us” is a weak answer.
There's a real constitutional issue here, and conservatives shouldn't dodge it because Trump is president. The weaponization of government was real; ask parents, pro-lifers, Catholics, Jan. 6 defendants, Trump supporters, and political dissidents, who saw federal power used in ways that still deserve answers. A government that abuses people owes them accountability.
But accountability can't become a private compensation machine run through vague rules, political discretion, and a massive federal checkbook. Congress controls federal spending; courts review legal injuries, and the DOJ enforces the law. When those lanes blur, even a good cause can start looking like a shortcut.
The administration's best defense is also the easiest one to prove. If the fund is dead, put it in writing. If the DOJ believes Brinkema asked for too much, then rescind the order, file a clean notice, and remove every excuse for critics to claim the plan is hiding under a new name.
Separation of powers is worth defending, but so is clarity.
The worst outcome would be letting the left turn a legitimate fight against government weaponization into a story about secret payouts. Conservatives spent years arguing, correctly, that federal power must be checked. We shouldn't change that standard when our side controls the machinery.
Blanche may believe he's protecting the presidency from a judge's overreach. Maybe he is, but politics isn't a law school exam. Refusing to swear the fund is dead made the fund look alive, and that was an unenforced error.
President Trump doesn't need the Anti-Weaponization Fund to prove that the old DOJ targeted the wrong people. He needs a DOJ that cleanly exposes abuse, prosecutes real crimes, and restores equal treatment under law.
A signed declaration wouldn't have weakened that mission: it would've strengthened it.
If you value independent conservative writing, join PJ Media VIP and use promo code FIGHT for the current 60% discount and support work that keeps asking hard questions regardless of who holds power.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member