WASHINGTON — A federal judge in Virginia on Friday extended a block on the Trump administration proceeding with an $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund, finding the administration’s claims of its demise insufficient. Ruling from the bench, Judge Leonie Brinkema of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia said the administration cannot move forward with the fund while the ...

Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche, left, speaks during a roundtable discussion with FBI Director Kash Patel, right, at the U.S. Department of Justice June 11, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Members of the roundtable discussed their belief of the“ weaponization” against parents in schools prior to U.S. President Donald Trump taking office.

Win McNamee/Getty Images North America/TNS

WASHINGTON — A federal judge in Virginia on Friday extended a block on the Trump administration proceeding with an $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund, finding the administration’s claims of its demise insufficient.

Ruling from the bench, Judge Leonie Brinkema of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia said the administration cannot move forward with the fund while the lawsuit challenging it proceeds.

Brinkema said statements by acting Attorney General Todd Blanche to Congress that the fund was “not moving forward” were not enough. A Justice Department filing had argued the lawsuit is moot, but the challengers to the fund questioned if the Justice Department truly is abandoning the program.

Brinkema brought up the possibility that the administration may have strategically dropped the fund to escape the lawsuits against it, and said, “the issue in my view is not moot.”

During Friday’s hearing she also cited President Donald Trump’s own statements since her initial ruling that he still wanted the fund to go forward. The fact that a sitting president wants the fund to happen is a “pretty good indication that there is some incentive or motive to make it happen,” the judge said.

Brinkema gave the administration a week to enter a binding statement from both Blanche and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent formally saying the fund would never go forward. If that statement was entered, Brinkema said she may dismiss the lawsuit.

The lawsuit was brought by several individuals, Common Cause, the National Abortion Federation and the city of New Haven, Conn., after the announcement of the fund last month. The DOJ announced the $1.8 billion fund as part of settling the lawsuit Trump brought against his own administration over the leak of Trump’s tax returns during his first term.

The fund would allow people harmed by “weaponization” of prior Democratic administrations to apply for compensation. The board of the fund would be approved by Blanche and Trump could remove any members at will.

After bipartisan concerns about the fund delayed a vote on the reconciliation law, Blanche last week testified before House appropriators that the fund was “not moving forward.”

At the court hearing Friday, Justice Department attorney Andrew Block said the lawsuit should be dismissed because of Blanche’s statements and court filings that the administration has not taken any steps to its implementation.

However, after being asked why Blanche has not rescinded the initial order setting up the fund, Block also said he didn’t know and could not answer why.

Block also argued in opposition to the order against the fund, saying an injunction on the federal government’s conduct of “lawful business” was presumably an injury.

Brinkema questioned the legality of the underlying fund.

“You think this is lawful business? The only reason this fund exists is because of a settlement of a lawsuit that is now seriously under scrutiny in another court,” Brinkema said.

Brinkema also read from a portion of a brief filed by Sens. Cory Booker, D-N.J., and Bill Cassidy, R-La., opposing the fund. In their brief, Booker and Cassidy called the fund a “scheme” to reward people who attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and who Trump has already pardoned.

Brinkema called the fund “problematic” and said of the use of taxpayer funds means “separation of powers is absolutely involved in this situation.”

In the separate Florida litigation, both Trump and the administration face a Friday deadline to explain whether the two sides were sufficiently separate to be considered court adversaries.

Brinkema mentioned that litigation several times during Friday’s hearing.