A federal judge in Virginia declined to close the door on litigation tied to the Trump administration's $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund, telling Justice Department lawyers that the questions at the heart of the case remain unresolved even after the fund was formally rescinded.
U.S. District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema said during a hearing Friday that the issues underlying the dispute are «still alive and kicking in my view.» Her remarks came in response to a DOJ motion asking her to dismiss the case, which the department argued had become moot after Attorney General Todd Blanche issued a formal rescission order in August and repeatedly affirmed under oath before Congress that the fund no longer exists.
Brinkema acknowledged that the Anti-Weaponization Fund itself is gone. «That entity is gone,» she said, agreeing that Blanche had testified at his confirmation hearings that the fund is dead. But she pressed DOJ lawyers on whether a «functional equivalent» had taken its place, pointing to the department's ordinary Judgment Fund authority.
The Judgment Fund is a permanent U.S. Treasury account managed by the Bureau of the Fiscal Service that pays court judgments and legal settlements against the federal government. Brinkema described it as «a less transparent structure» and suggested that some defendants convicted under the FACE Act may have already received large payouts from that account.
At the center of that concern is the case of Paul Vaughn of Centerville, Tennessee, who was convicted in January 2024 for his role in blockading an abortion clinic in Mount Juliet, Tennessee, in March 2021. Vaughn ultimately received a pardon and a taxpayer-funded payout from the DOJ's Judgment Fund, which he has confirmed is in the «seven figures.»
Brinkema framed the broader worry as one of public money being used to advance particular political viewpoints. She cited pro-life activists convicted of violating the FACE Act as well as people who attempted what she described as an «insurrection» on January 6 to «overthrow the legitimate election.»
DOJ lawyer Andrew Block asked what remedy the plaintiff could seek given that «the fund is dead.» Brinkema countered that although the case is nowhere near the remedy stage, «I think there are remedies.» She raised the possibility of requiring a neutral overseer for any fund — «not someone from the DOJ, which I see unfortunately as coerced» in this matter.
She also criticized the administration's public messaging, saying there had been «too much talk from members of the administration» that undercut the department's position. «They contradict themselves all the time,» Brinkema said, adding that a «proper, unbiased look» was needed.
The hearing ended with Brinkema telling both sides she intends to craft a new discovery order in the coming days, a signal that the litigation is far from finished. The case has already produced a significant procedural development: Brinkema indefinitely blocked the $1.776 billion fund earlier in the proceedings, a move that preceded the DOJ's rescission order.
For the Justice Department, the hearing represented a setback in its effort to put the matter behind it. The department has argued that with the fund formally rescinded and the attorney general's sworn assurances on the record, there is nothing left for the court to supervise. Brinkema's skepticism suggests she is not prepared to accept that argument without further examination of how money is flowing through other channels.
The dispute touches on a broader debate over how federal settlements and judgments are paid and whether those mechanisms can be used in ways that are less visible than a dedicated fund. Brinkema's focus on the Judgment Fund indicates that the next phase of the case may center on whether existing Treasury authority is being used to achieve ends similar to those the Anti-Weaponization Fund was meant to serve.
No new discovery order has been issued yet, and both sides are awaiting Brinkema's next steps. The judge's comments left little doubt that she views the underlying legal questions as live, even as the specific fund at issue has been formally dissolved.