A federal judge has issued an indefinite block on the Trump administration’s controversial $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund, citing concerns that the program could be revived in the future despite assurances it has been abandoned. The Friday ruling by U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema adds another layer of legal complexity to a fund that has faced fierce opposition since its creation.

The decision comes just days after another federal judge took a different approach to the same issue. Earlier this week, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon declined to intervene after the Justice Department represented that the fund was no longer moving forward. However, the conflicting judicial responses have intensified pressure on the administration to formally dismantle the program through official channels.

Judge Brinkema, who was appointed by President Clinton, extended her court order preventing implementation of the fund after determining that public statements from administration officials were insufficient guarantees. In her ruling, she specifically referenced President Trump’s recent comments suggesting disappointment that the fund was not proceeding, interpreting this as evidence that the program might “rear its head” at some point down the line.

During a “Meet the Press” interview over the weekend, Trump expressed his desire to continue with the fund. “If it was up to me, I’d pay them the kind of money that they deserve. People have been destroyed. Lives have been destroyed,” the president stated, remarks that apparently influenced Brinkema’s decision to maintain the block.

The judge has given the Justice Department one week to provide written confirmation that the Anti-Weaponization Fund is being formally terminated and will not be reinstated. This requirement goes beyond the verbal assurances that satisfied Judge Leon earlier in the week.

The fund originated from President Trump’s lawsuit settlement with the Internal Revenue Service and was designed to compensate alleged victims of government “lawfare.” According to the administration’s original plan, it would provide financial relief to individuals who claimed they were targeted through politically motivated prosecutions or investigations. However, the program immediately drew criticism from Democratic lawmakers who characterized it as a “slush fund” that could ultimately benefit Trump’s political allies and individuals charged in connection with the January 6 Capitol riot.

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche announced during a congressional hearing earlier this month that the Anti-Weaponization Fund would not proceed. Despite this public declaration, neither the settlement agreement that created the fund nor the departmental directives establishing its procedures have been formally rescinded. Critics argue this bureaucratic limbo leaves the door open for the fund to be resurrected at a later date.

Judge Leon, appointed by President George W. Bush, accepted the government’s assurances when he rejected a separate emergency request from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. However, he issued a stern warning from the bench: “I give the Justice Department this warning: Don’t play possum with me.” Leon made clear that his decision should not be interpreted as permission to revive the program and indicated he could sanction attorneys who make false representations to the court.

During arguments before Leon, Justice Department attorney Andrew Block contended that Blanche’s congressional testimony effectively ended the legal challenge because the government had publicly committed not to move forward. However, Leon repeatedly questioned why Blanche has not formally rescinded a May 18 order that established operational procedures for the fund, a question Block could not adequately answer.

CREW attorney Nikhel Sus argued that the settlement agreement establishing the fund remains legally operative and contains upcoming deadlines requiring government action. According to Sus, a five-member board overseeing the fund must be established by June 17, while funding transfers are scheduled by July 17. “On paper, the fund is still a legally operating entity,” Sus maintained during court proceedings.

The legal disputes highlight a broader tension between executive authority and judicial oversight. While the Trump administration has signaled through various channels that the fund will not proceed, the absence of formal documentation rescinding the program has created uncertainty and skepticism among watchdog organizations and the judiciary.

Judge Leon indicated he will continue considering CREW’s request for a preliminary injunction and suggested he could intervene if evidence emerges that the administration is attempting to revive the fund through alternative means. This ongoing judicial scrutiny, combined with Brinkema’s indefinite block, ensures that the Anti-Weaponization Fund will remain under close legal examination in the coming weeks.

The fate of the nearly $2 billion program now depends on whether the Trump administration will take the formal bureaucratic steps necessary to satisfy judicial concerns, or whether the legal ambiguity will persist, keeping the possibility of the fund’s revival alive for the foreseeable future.