Virginia Federal Court Allows Lawsuit Against Biden Administration’s Proposed $1.776 Billion Anti-Weaponization Fund

By Michael Katz | Thursday, 25 June 2026 08:22 PM EDT

A federal judge in Virginia has allowed a lawsuit challenging a proposed $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund to proceed, rejecting the Department of Justice’s argument that the case was moot.

On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, a Clinton appointee, denied the Department of Justice’s request to dismiss the lawsuit, which questions a fund established as part of a settlement in President Donald Trump’s personal $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS. The fund aims to compensate individuals the administration alleges were victims of government weaponization under the Biden administration.

Judge Brinkema ruled that the government’s assurances about the fund being “not going forward” were insufficient to render the case moot. The Department of Justice had argued that Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s congressional testimony—which stated the fund was “not going forward, period”—was enough justification for dismissal.

However, Judge Brinkema noted the government refused to back those statements with sworn declarations under penalty of perjury. She emphasized that Blanche’s refusal to rescind his May 18 memo establishing the fund’s structure, combined with Blanche and Trump’s continued interest in compensating alleged victims of government weaponization, all support the conclusion that the lawsuit is not moot.

The judge ordered the case into discovery and directed the Department of Justice to file its answer or responsive pleading by July 17. In her four-page order, Brinkema wrote: “On the record before this Court, the President and Acting Attorney General Blanche’s continued interest in compensating alleged victims of alleged government weaponization, the defendants’ unwillingness to provide declarations under penalty of perjury, and Acting Attorney General Blanche’s refusal to rescind the May 18, 2026 memo that set up the structure of the Fund, all support the conclusion that this civil action is not moot.”

The Department of Justice previously argued sworn declarations were unnecessary, citing Blanche’s congressional testimony and prior court filings. The DOJ stated: “All these statements were made against the backdrop of serious penalties for falsity,” so declarations should not affect the court’s mootness analysis.

The DOJ also objected to Judge Brinkema’s demand that three senior executive branch officials submit sworn statements, claiming such testimony would raise “serious separation of powers concerns” and has “no basis” under law. Brinkema countered: “That the defendants have refused to accord a genuine degree of trustworthiness to their representations about the Fund not going forward is particularly concerning because of the President’s consistent support for the Fund and Acting Attorney General Blanche’s acknowledgement that the Fund remains ‘important.’”

She noted that during testimony, Blanche repeatedly stated the fund was “not going forward” but when asked whether he would issue a written memo rescinding his May 18 memo, he replied: “I’m not committing to putting anything in writing. And I said it over and over again.”

The lawsuit’s plaintiffs include Andrew Floyd, a former federal prosecutor who claims he was fired for prosecuting cases against individuals who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021; Jonathan Caravello, a professor at California State University Channel Islands; and the city of New Haven, Connecticut.