A federal court granted a preliminary injunction preventing the Trump administration from establishing a nearly $1.8 billion slush fund for the president’s political allies as a lawsuit against the account moves ahead.
District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Virginia issued the June 12 order following a court hearing and after the White House failed to offer proof that the plan to create the “Anti-Weaponization Fund” had been rescinded as publicly claimed by administration officials.
Leonie Brinkema
Brinkema gave Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward Jr., and Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent until June 19 to sign declarations “under penalty of perjury” that the fund would not be created or operated in any form or under any name as litigation continues.
The ruling solidified a temporary restraining order Brinkema issued May 29 prohibiting the administration “from taking any further action pursuant to the creation or operation of the Anti-Weaponization Fund, which includes the transferring of money to the fund; the consideration of any claims submitted to the fund; and the disbursing of any funds from the fund.”
Both rulings stem from Andrew Floyd v. U.S. Department of Justice, a lawsuit filed in May after Blanche announced he had authorized creation of a $1.776 billion fund as part of the settlement of the president’s $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS over leaked tax documents.
In exchange for agreeing to dismiss the lawsuit, the president demanded creation of an account from which to secretly pay January 6 insurrectionists and other ideological allies investigated, indicted or sued for civil or criminal offenses.
In response, Democracy Forward filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of Andrew Floyd, a former U.S. attorney and January 6 prosector terminated by the administration, and Jonathan Caravello, a professor arrested and later acquitted of assaulting federal agents during a California immigration protest in 2025. The City of New Haven, Conn., Common Cause and the National Abortion Federation were also named as plaintiffs in the action.
The lawsuit argued the fund would violate the U.S. Constitution by exceeding executive branch authority, bypassing congressional and judicial oversight and using taxpayer funds to compensate anti-democracy and anti-abortion protesters.
In the meantime, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams in Miami, who presided over Trump’s IRS lawsuit, reopened the litigation to determine if the action simply served as an excuse to create the “Anti-Weaponization Fund.” Her May 29 order was issued in response to a motion filed by 35 former federal judges.
“The non-party movants explain that although there is no settlement of record in this matter, public documents and announcements indicate that the dismissal of this case was premised on a purported settlement between the parties. Here, the non-party movants advance grievous allegations that plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this litigation solely to avoid judicial scrutiny of a lawsuit that ‘was collusive from the start’ and was only filed to provide the imprimatur of legality for an unlawful settlement.”
Brinkema’s latest injunction further demonstrates the Trump administration cannot be trusted with taxpayers’ money, plaintiffs in Andrew Floyd v. U.S. Department of Justice said.
“Today’s ruling is a massive win, ensuring hard-earned tax dollars stay out of the hands of the president’s cronies and people who violently assaulted law enforcement on January 6 while we’re securing justice for American taxpayers in court,” said Omar Noureldin, senior vice president for policy and litigation at Common Cause.
Democracy Forward President Skye Perryman said Brinkema’s order is also a win for the Constitution, the rule of law and American citizens.
“The court recognized the serious legal concerns raised by the Trump-Vance administration’s attempt to create a secretive, taxpayer-funded compensation program operating outside the constitutional safeguards that govern public spending. Despite the administration’s shifting explanations about the future of the slush fund, the court’s order ensures that taxpayer dollars cannot be distributed through this unlawful scheme while the courts fully consider the serious constitutional issues at stake.”
Related:
Democracy Forward files suit to stop Trump’s slush fund
Judge blocks Trump’s January 6 slush fund
Court will scrutinize Trump’s original $10 billion claim against IRS