Judge Blocks $1.776B Anti-Weaponization Slush Fund

ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA — In a major blow to President Trump’s $1.776 billion anti-weaponization slush fund, a federal judge in Virginia issued a preliminary injunction blocking the fund. The Virginia case is just one of a handful of legal challenges to the slush fund, which was spawned by last month’s dubious settlement of Trump’s collusive lawsuit against the IRS.

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema issued her ruling from the bench after a brief Friday hearing in federal court in the Eastern District of Virginia in Alexandria (here’s her written order). The judge rejected the administration’s argument that the case was moot because it is no longer planning on proceeding with the fund, which would give the president unfettered power to distribute the funds to political allies, including Jan. 6 rioters, who improbably claim to be victims of the Deep State.

While Brinkema ultimately found that all the elements were met to issue a preliminary injunction blocking the fund from going forward, she did give the administration one week to file a declaration from Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, Jr., and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, under penalty of perjury, formally rescinding the fund. Either way, the fund would be legally barred from proceeding.

From the start, Brinkema took firm control of the hearing. “I’m very intrigued by what happened across the river,” she began, referring to the decision Wednesday in federal court in D.C. in a parallel legal challenge to the slush fund.

In that case, U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon had relied on the administration’s word that the slush fund was dead and found the case to be moot, although he warned it not “play possum” and just pretend it was dead.

Brinkema immediately zeroed in on what she called a “considerable gap in the record,” the failure of the Trump administration to rescind the slush fund in writing under penalty of perjury.

In a stroke of particularly bad luck for the administration, Brinkema said she had been reversed on appeal in a 2017 case that was “absolutely on point” in dealing with a similar mootness issue. It led to an amusing moment in court today where Brinkema called out to see if the lawyer in that earlier case was present. He raised his hand from the gallery. “There you are,” she said mischievously. “He got me reversed on this.”

“Voluntary cessation of allegedly illegal conduct does not deprive the court of jurisdiction,” she read from the 4th Circuit opinion, which rested on “the principle that parties should not be able to avoid judicial review by temporarily halting their problematic behavior.”

The party has a “formidable burden” to show “absolutely clear” evidence that the behavior will not be resumed, Brinkema said, continuing to read the appeal court ruling overturning her nearly a decade ago. It needs to be an “irrevocable and irreversible agreement” not to resume the conduct.

“The bottom line is I don’t have on this record that kind of incontrovertible evidence that this is not going to resume,” Brinkema said, before citing Blanche’s refusal to commit to rescinding the slush fund in writing and Trump’s statements the very next day extolling the slush fund.

After quoting Trump, Brinkema said, “When the president of the United States says he wants something to happen, that’s a pretty good indicator that it’s going to happen.”

After rejecting the remainder of the administration’s jurisdictional arguments, Brinkema was ready to treat it as a hearing for a preliminary injunction and pressed DOJ attorney Andrew Block on what irreparable harm an injunction would cause the government. He struggled to provide an answer that satisfied her.

Brinkema finally turned for the first time to plaintiff’s counsel Pooja Boisture, who pointedly wondered aloud how the government could be harmed by an injunction blocking a fund it insists is already dead.

In short order, Brinkema ran through the other considerations for granting an injunction and issued her ruling in plaintiffs’ favor, with a caveat. “If the government truly means this fund is over, I’m going to give you a week,” Brinkema told Block, saying that filing a declaration under penalty of perjury from Blanche and Bessent would probably convince her the fund is dead for good and render the case moot.

The concern remains, as The Atlantic reported yesterday, that the administration is already looking for others ways to use government funds to pay off Trump’s allies without congressional authorization or judicial scrutiny.

This story has been updated to reflect the written order Judge Brinkema issued after this post was first published.