Federal Judge Halts Trump's $1.776B "Anti-Weaponization Fund" — No Money Can Move While Lawsuits Proceed

On May 29, 2026, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia issued an order freezing the $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund in its entirety. The DOJ cannot transfer money into the fund, cannot consider any claims, and cannot disburse any payments — the fund is frozen while legal challenges proceed.

A hearing on whether to extend the injunction is scheduled for June 12.

What the judge ordered

Brinkema's order bars the DOJ from "taking any further action pursuant to the creation or operation" of the fund. Specifically:

• No money can be transferred into the fund
• No claims can be considered or reviewed
• No payments can be disbursed

The rationale: "to ensure that no funds are irreversibly disbursed" from the program while the court evaluates the legal challenges. She wrote that "it is important that the status quo be maintained."

No money had yet been paid out. The five-member commission that would set eligibility criteria had not been formed. But the judge acted to prevent the administration from racing to disburse funds before courts could rule on the lawsuits.

Who sued

The lead plaintiff is Andrew Floyd, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney who investigated and prosecuted January 6 defendants — then was fired in what he believes was direct retaliation for that work. He's joined by Jonathan Caravello, a California professor arrested while protesting an immigration raid, and nonprofit organizations.

The suit was filed by Democracy Forward. Its CEO, Skye Perryman, called the fund "a secretive and unprecedented political compensation scheme" that is "on a collision course with the United States Constitution."

Their complaint calls the fund a "collusive agreement" between Trump and his own administration that has "no congressional authorization, no basis in law, and no accountability."

Three lawsuits, one fund

The fund now faces three separate legal challenges:

1. Floyd v. DOJ (Eastern District of Virginia) — the suit that produced this ruling, filed by the fired Jan. 6 prosecutor and others through Democracy Forward
2. CREW v. DOJ (Washington, D.C.) — filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, calling the fund "a profound act of presidential corruption." A D.C. federal judge scheduled a separate hearing on whether to issue a temporary restraining order in that case
3. Dunn & Hodges v. DOJ (Washington, D.C.) — filed by the two police officers beaten defending the Capitol on January 6, arguing the fund violates the 14th Amendment's ban on paying debts incurred in aid of insurrection

35 former judges say: reopen the settlement

Separately, a coalition of 35 former federal judges urged the judge who oversaw Trump's original IRS lawsuit to reopen the case and examine whether the settlement deal itself constituted fraud. The entire fund was created through that settlement — Trump suing the government he runs, settled by his own former personal lawyer, with no adversarial process.

The structure they're challenging

The fund's design is what makes it unprecedented:

• The attorney general personally selects the five-member commission deciding payouts
• Commission decisions cannot be appealed or challenged in court
• There is no public disclosure requirement for recipients or payout amounts
• The fund was created through a settlement where the president sued his own government, settled by his own former defense lawyer

No congressional authorization. No transparency. No judicial review. No adversarial process. The president's own lawyer decided to pay the president's own allies with the public's own money.

The DOJ's response

A DOJ spokesperson said the department "remains extremely confident in the legality of the Anti-Weaponization Fund" and that it is "supported by ample precedent, including Obama-era settlements."

The spokesperson added: "We will not allow the policy preferences of judges to interfere with our efforts to provide restitution to victims of lawfare."

"We will not allow the policy preferences of judges to interfere." The Department of Justice — the institution whose entire purpose is to enforce judicial decisions — says it will not allow judges to interfere. That sentence tells you everything about what the DOJ has become under Todd Blanche.

The bipartisan wall

The fund has now been:

• Frozen by a federal judge
• Challenged by three separate lawsuits
• Questioned by 35 former federal judges
• Condemned by Senate Democrats — all Judiciary Committee Democrats wrote to the inspector general requesting an investigation into "waste, fraud, and abuse of an unprecedented magnitude"
• Attacked by Senate Republicans — McConnell ("utterly stupid, morally wrong"), Tillis ("a payout pot for punks"), Johnson ("a galactic blunder"), Collins ("I do not support the weaponization fund")
• Mocked by Trump's own endorser — Rogan compared it to Uday Hussein
• Sued by the cops who were beaten on January 6

Two weeks ago, this fund didn't exist. It was created in secret, announced without warning, and immediately became the most bipartisan object of contempt in American politics. Everyone who looks at it — judges, senators, cops, podcasters, legal scholars — reaches the same conclusion: this is corruption so brazen it doesn't even pretend to be anything else.