MS NOW95%
Judge indefinitely blocks Trump’s $1.8 billion ‘anti-weaponization’ fund, wants guarantee it’s dead 44%
By Fallon Gallagher28% Sydney Carruth0% Lillie Boudreaux0%
6/12/2026, 5:11:01 PM
BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Biased Writer Voice, and Fundamental Attribution Error, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 32% saturation with 195 hits. Analysis detected 772 faulty-reasoning hits from 610 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 47.1% and a BS Rank of 44% (12,321 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 56.30% of the article peer group.
A federal judge in Virginia on Friday extended her block on the Trump administration’s nearly $1.8 billion compensation fund for individuals who believe they were victims of an alleged “weaponized” federal government.
U.S.
District Judge Leonie Brinkema’s ruling extends the band-aid block she initially ordered on May 29 to prevent the Department of Justice from launching the taxpayer-funded $1.8 billion payout system, which critics refer to as a “slush fund.”
Brinkema requested the Department of Justice submit a sworn declaration by next week indicating it is not moving forward with the fund — and signed by both the acting attorney general and the Treasury secretary.
She indicated she would likely dismiss the case as moot if the administration submits the rescission in writing.
If the DOJ does not provide the declaration, the legal challenge will likely continue.
“The Anti-Weaponization Fund presents an immediate and dire threat to our constitutional order and the authority of Congress,” Sen.
Bill Cassidy, R-La., and Sen.
Cory Booker, D-N.J., wrote in a brief they filed in the case, which Brinkema read aloud in court Friday.
“Indeed, among other purposes, the Fund is designed to compensate the insurrectionists who stormed the U.S.
Capitol on January 6th,” the senators wrote.
The some 1,500 Jan. 6 rioters President Donald Trump pardoned upon his return to the White House in 2025 are among those most likely to profit from such a fund.
Trump’s DOJ established the fund as part of a settlement stemming from the president’s $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax returns.
The account, every penny of which comes from taxpayer dollars, would establish a “lawful process for victims of lawfare and weaponization” to “seek redress,” acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said at the time of its announcement.
But a groundswell of opposition from Republicans on Capitol Hill forced the Trump administration to back down.
On June 2, Blanche announced at a congressional hearing, “we’re not moving forward with the fund, period.”
Blanche’s abandonment of the fund did little to dissuade organizations that opposed the fund from pressing forward with a lawsuit to stop it.
A a coalition of former Jan. 6 prosecutors and nonprofit organizations that brought the Virginia suit argued Blanche’s statements were not legally binding.
They also pointed to Trump’s continued public push for the fund after Blanche’s congressional testimony.
In one pretaped interview with “Meet the Press” that aired June 7, Trump said, “I think the weaponization fund is a great idea, and so do many other Republicans.
You have to get it approved.”
Brinkema expressed concern over Trump’s comments and Blanche’s refusal to commit to rescinding the fund in writing as reason for her decision on Friday.
The president’s statements, she said, “carry a lot of weight” and represent a “pretty good indicator that there will be some incentive or motive to make it happen.”
Trump railed against Brinkema’s May 29 order that originally blocked the fund, calling her a “a radical leftist judge” in a post on Truth Social.
The judge referenced that attack while speaking to an attorney for the DOJ during Friday’s arguments.
The DOJ has called for the case’s dismissal, arguing Blanche’s statement means there is no issue for the court to decide.
The plaintiffs who brought the legal challenges to the fund have repeatedly pushed back on that assertion.
In addressing the DOJ’s argument, Brinkema said its ability to voluntarily kill the fund does not usurp her authority to rule on the issue.
“[The Trump administration] should not be able to evade judicial review by temporarily altering behavior,” Brinkema said.
Speakers
6speakers38%attributed speech376writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Selected voice
100%flagged-word coverageDonald Trump
60 attributed words26% of attributed speech63% writer coverage
Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Analysis
Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.