Judge questions DOJ's dismissal of Trump-era anti-weaponization fund case

ALEXANDRIA, Va. — U.S. District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema expressed skepticism Friday regarding the Department of Justice's request to dismiss a case challenging the Trump administration's $1.776 billion "Anti-Weaponization Fund." Despite DOJ lawyers arguing that Attorney General Todd Blanche formally rescinded the fund in August and has repeatedly stated it is defunct, Brinkema indicated the underlying issues remain relevant.

"The issues that underly this case are still alive and kicking in my view," Brinkema stated during the hearing. She highlighted a core concern: "the concept of taxpayer money being used to promote particular political views." Brinkema referenced individuals convicted under the FACE Act and those involved in the January 6th events as examples of groups whose actions might be linked to such concerns.

While acknowledging that the "Anti-Weaponization Fund" entity itself is gone, Brinkema questioned whether a "functional equivalent" exists, pointing to the DOJ's ordinary Judgment Fund authority. This permanent U.S. Treasury account, managed by the Bureau of the Fiscal Service, is used to pay court judgments and legal settlements against the federal government. Brinkema described it as "a less transparent structure" and suggested that some defendants convicted of FACE Act crimes have already received significant payouts from this fund.

The judge specifically brought up the case of Paul Vaughn, who was convicted in January 2024 for his role in blockading an abortion clinic in Mount Juliet, Tennessee, in March 2021. Vaughn, a resident of Centerville, Tennessee, later received a pardon and a "seven figures" payout from the DOJ's Judgment Fund, which he confirmed to Fox News.

When DOJ lawyer Andrew Block inquired about the plaintiff's desired remedy, given the fund's alleged demise, Brinkema countered that while the case is not yet at the remedy stage, "I think there are remedies." She proposed the possibility of a "neutral" overseer for any such fund, rather than someone from the DOJ, which she views as potentially compromised in this matter. Brinkema emphasized the need for "a proper, unbiased look," noting that statements from administration members have undermined the DOJ's position.

Brinkema concluded the hearing by indicating her intention to issue a new discovery order in the coming days, signaling that the legal proceedings are far from over.