Judge extends block on Trump’s $1.8 billion ‘Anti-Weaponization Fund’
PBS NewsHour – Politics — 2026-06-12 10:57:00 — www.pbs.org
Trump Continues to Support Controversial $1.8 Billion Settlement Fund Despite Court Block
A federal judge has extended a court-ordered block on the Trump administration’s $1.8 billion settlement fund, designed to compensate individuals claiming to be victims of a weaponized government. Despite the Justice Department’s announcement that the fund would be scrapped amid bipartisan backlash, President Donald Trump has not publicly and unequivocally endorsed its cancellation. Instead, he has continued to express support for the fund in remarks to reporters.
Trump’s Ongoing Support for the Fund
While acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told Congress that the administration was abandoning the fund, Trump’s position has remained supportive. The judge overseeing the case, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, noted that Trump has not clearly backed away from the initiative, leaving open the possibility that the fund could be revived. Brinkema has ordered further negotiations to ensure the administration will not move forward with the fund without a sworn declaration from Blanche.
Legal and Political Controversy
The fund, created by Trump’s administration to resolve his lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over leaked tax returns, has faced criticism from both parties. Plaintiffs argue that the government cannot legally divert taxpayer money into what they describe as a slush fund for compensating Trump’s allies. The controversy deepened when it was revealed that the fund could potentially be used to compensate individuals involved in the January 6 Capitol riot—a group Trump issued mass pardons to on his first day back in the White House last year.
Fact-Check: Trump’s Record and the Fund
Despite claims from the administration that the fund would not proceed, Trump’s continued support and lack of a clear public statement endorsing its cancellation have fueled skepticism. The Justice Department never formed the commission required to decide on payout criteria, and no money has been disbursed. However, the administration’s reluctance to formally rescind the order establishing the fund has left the issue unresolved in the courts.
Conclusion
President Trump’s ongoing support for the controversial settlement fund, despite bipartisan opposition and a federal court block, highlights his willingness to stand by initiatives that critics argue benefit his allies and undermine legal norms. The lack of a definitive public statement from Trump ending the fund leaves open questions about the administration’s intentions and the future of the disputed payouts. As the legal battle continues, the case underscores the broader debate over accountability and the use of taxpayer funds for politically charged purposes.