Judge extends block on Trump’s $1.8bn ‘anti-weaponization’ fund
A federal judge in Virginia has maintained a temporary restraining order blocking the Trump administration's nearly $1.8 billion fund created to settle the former president's longstanding lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the unauthorized disclosure of his tax returns. US District Judge Leonie Brinkema, appointed to the bench by President Bill Clinton, rejected the administration's informal assurances that the fund had been abandoned, stating that public statements alone did not provide sufficient legal protection. The judge indicated she would consider lifting the restraining order only if Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent submitted formal declarations under penalty of perjury within seven days confirming that the fund would not proceed. The decision represents a significant obstacle to the administration's efforts to resolve litigation tied to the 2021 leak of Trump's tax information to news organizations, which sparked years of legal wrangling between Trump's representatives and federal agencies.
The fund in question was established as part of a settlement framework intended to address Trump's claims that the IRS had violated his rights by allowing his confidential tax returns to become public. According to court documents, the administration created the mechanism to compensate Trump for what his legal team characterized as violations of privacy and potential emotional harm stemming from the unauthorized disclosure. The nearly $1.8 billion figure represents a substantial commitment of federal resources, though the justification for the specific amount remains contested. The restraining order, previously issued by Judge Brinkema, had halted any disbursement or administrative processing of the fund pending further legal review. The judge's latest ruling extends this freeze indefinitely unless the administration provides the requested sworn declarations from Blanche and Bessent within the specified timeframe. This procedural requirement forces administration officials to make explicit legal commitments rather than relying on policy statements or press office communications, significantly raising the stakes for proceeding with the settlement mechanism.
The dispute between Trump and the IRS traces back to June 2021, when journalists at multiple news outlets received copies of Trump's federal tax returns covering several years, prompting widespread public and political scrutiny of his financial situation and tax strategies. Trump's legal team subsequently filed suit against the IRS, alleging that unnamed officials had improperly leaked the confidential tax information without authorization, constituting a violation of taxpayer privacy protections. The case proceeded through federal courts over multiple years, generating considerable political controversy given Trump's historically contentious relationship with the IRS and his repeated public attacks on the agency. When Trump returned to office in 2025, his administration apparently decided that settling the litigation through financial compensation would be more efficient than continuing the protracted court battle. The $1.8 billion fund represented the administration's proposed resolution mechanism, though critics immediately questioned both the legal basis for compensating Trump and the use of federal resources for this purpose.
Judge Brinkema's decision to demand sworn declarations from high-ranking administration officials signals serious judicial skepticism about the fund's legitimacy. By requiring the attorney general and treasury secretary to sign documents subject to criminal penalties for perjury, the judge created a legal instrument far more binding than public statements or administrative guidance. This approach reflects broader concerns about the separation of powers and whether executive branch officials should be permitted to unilaterally commit substantial federal resources to resolve the sitting president's personal litigation. The case highlights tensions between presidential authority to manage executive agencies and judicial oversight of executive actions that may exceed constitutional or statutory bounds. The implications extend beyond this specific settlement, raising questions about whether future administrations might attempt similar financial arrangements to resolve legal disputes involving sitting executives. The decision also underscores the role of federal courts in checking executive power, particularly when substantial public resources are at stake and no clear statutory authority appears to authorize the proposed action. For observers tracking challenges to Trump's second-term policies, this ruling demonstrates that courts remain willing to impose procedural obstacles and demand heightened evidentiary standards for controversial executive initiatives.
The next critical development will occur within the seven-day window that Judge Brinkema specified, when Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent must decide whether to submit the requested sworn declarations. Should they decline to provide the statements, the restraining order will remain in place indefinitely, effectively killing the fund without requiring the judge to issue a final ruling on its legality. If the officials do file declarations under penalty of perjury, the judge will then face a decision about whether to lift the restraining order and allow the case to proceed through normal litigation channels, or whether to convert the temporary restraining order into a preliminary injunction, which would extend the block pending resolution of the underlying legal challenges. The American Civil Liberties Union and other civil rights organizations have indicated their intention to intervene in the case, seeking to formally challenge the fund on constitutional and statutory grounds. The case will likely reach higher appellate courts regardless of Judge Brinkema's next ruling, potentially involving the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and eventually the Supreme Court if fundamental questions about executive authority and resource allocation reach that level. Administration officials will also face political pressure from both supporters who view the IRS lawsuit as justified retribution and critics who characterize the entire effort as an abuse of executive power to benefit the president personally.
