By Zoe Tillman | Updated on Jun 12, 2026 at 04:43 PM
A federal judge in Virginia will allow a lawsuit to proceed challenging the Trump administration’s plans for a $1.8 billion fund for alleged victims of political “weaponization,” despite assurances from US officials that the plan won’t move forward.
During a hearing on Friday, US District Judge Leonie Brinkema rebuffed the government’s arguments that Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s public statements that the plan was dropped were enough confirmation. She entered an order blocking officials from taking action on the fund while the litigation moves ahead.
Brinkema gave the government one week to submit a written, sworn statement signed by Blanche and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent declaring that the fund will not be pursued. If she doesn’t receive that statement, Brinkema said she would set a full schedule for next steps in the case.
In explaining her decision to impose a preliminary injunction, Brinkema said that without written confirmation from top officials that carried penalties for lying, there was not “uncontestable” evidence that the fund was permanently scrapped. She cited President Donald Trump’s public comments expressing support for the fund and saying he would be disappointed if it was dropped.
The judge said the public interest in the fate of the “problematic” fund was “very strong” and that weighed in favor of a court order ensuring no action would happen for now.
The case before Brinkema was brought by a group of challengers with varying claims for why they would be harmed by the fund, including a former federal prosecutor who handled cases related to the Jan. 6, 2021, riots at the US Capitol. It is one of at least five lawsuits filed to challenge the fund after it was announced in May as part of a settlement to resolve Trump’s $10 billion case against the Internal Revenue Service.
Brinkema’s order followed a decision earlier in the week by a US judge in Washington who refused to immediately enter an order against the government, crediting the Justice Department’s assurances that officials would not go ahead with the fund plan.
Federal district judges generally aren’t bound to follow each other’s findings and decisions. Brinkema’s order will bind the administration even though the judge in Washington declined to intervene.
Brinkema already had temporarily halted action on the fund shortly after it was announced in May. Her original order was set to expire on Friday.
The plan faced rare pushback from Republicans as well as from Democrats who slammed the proposal as a “slush fund” for the president’s allies and supporters. Blanche testified before Congress earlier this month that the department is “ not moving forward with the fund, period,” but said at the time that it wasn’t necessary to put that commitment in writing.
A Justice Department spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Brinkema’s ruling.
“Despite the administration’s shifting explanations about the future of the slush fund, the court’s order ensures that taxpayer dollars cannot be distributed through this unlawful scheme while the courts fully consider the serious constitutional issues at stake,” Skye Perryman, president of Democracy Forward, which represents challengers in the Virginia case, said in a statement.
The other four lawsuits challenging the fund were still active as of Friday.
Separate from those suits, a federal judge in Miami is considering what she described as “grievous” allegations raised by a group of former federal jurists over the arrangement. The judges suggested that the settlement reached between Trump and his administration was the result of a “fraud on the court” because he effectively controlled both sides. Trump’s personal attorneys are due to respond to those accusations on Friday.
The agreement to settle Trump’s case against the IRS also included a bar against audits of past tax filings by Trump, his family members and his businesses and other categories of government investigations. Blanche has said that the government would continue to honor that part of the deal.
The case is Floyd v. Department of Justice, 26-cv-1399, US District Court, Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria).