MS NOW95%
Trump DOJ refuses to kill ‘anti-weaponization’ fund in sworn court declaration 33%
By Fallon Gallagher28% Lisa Rubin40%
6/19/2026, 12:07:09 PM
BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Pessimism Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 32% saturation with 223 hits. Analysis detected 1,288 faulty-reasoning hits from 696 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 41.5% and a BS Rank of 33% (14,725 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 67.30% of the article peer group.
The Trump administration refused to formally kill its nearly $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund on Friday, declining to submit a court-requested sworn declaration to a federal judge acknowledging the program is dead.
Instead, the Department of Justice continued to rely on Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s congressional testimony that the administration is not moving forward with the fund.
In a notice to the court, the DOJ wrote, “Such declarations are unnecessary and the compelled testimony of senior officials from the Executive Branch implicates serious separation of powers concerns.”
The refusal by Blanche and the DOJ to put a pledge in writing not to create the fund — aimed at compensating those who believe they were the victims of alleged prosecutorial overreach —is likely to spark political backlash, especially on Capitol Hill where Blanche’s permanent nomination to head the department is pending.
The DOJ maintains its public statements — both in Blanche’s congressional testimony and in written court filings and hearings — should be sufficient.
“All these statements were made under the backdrop of serious penalties for falsity,” it writes.
“So there is no reason why declarations should affect the Court’s mootness analysis.”
The refusal by Blanche and the DOJ to put a pledge in writing not to create the fund — aimed at compensating those who believe they were the victims of alleged prosecutorial overreach — is likely to spark political backlash.
However, the department's statements about serious penalties regarding Blanche’s testimony are somewhat misleading.
One potential penalty is a criminal statute that punishes false statements made to Congress.
That statute can only be enforced by the DOJ itself.
The other penalties the DOJ mentions in the filing are rules governing lawyers’ conduct in federal courts, which do not extend to criminal contempt or contemplate much beyond monetary sanctions.
The declaration — which was supposed to be signed under penalty of perjury by both Blanche and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent — was expected to come in response to a deadline set by U.S.
District Judge Leonie Brinkema, who had requested written confirmation by Friday that the administration was not moving forward with the fund.
Brinkema indicated she would likely dismiss the pending legal challenge to the fund if the administration submitted the cancellation in writing.
If the DOJ did not submit a declaration, Brinkema indicated she would move forward with the legal challenge.
Brinkema’s request came at the end of a hearing in Virginia last week, when she indefinitely extended her block on the DOJ’s proposed compensation fund for individuals who believe they were the victims of unfair prosecution by the federal government.
Trump’s DOJ established the fund as part of a settlement agreement stemming from the president’s $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS over a leak of his tax returns.
The taxpayer-funded pot of money would establish a “lawful process for victims of lawfare and weaponization” to “seek redress,” according to Blanche.
But the fund quickly became a political liability.
Opposition from Republicans on Capitol Hill forced the administration’s retreat.
“We’re not moving forward with the fund — period,” Blanche announced at a congressional hearing on June 2.
That public statement did little to persuade opponents of the fund to back off legal challenges.
The coalition that brought the Virginia case pressed on, arguing that Blanche’s verbal assurances were not legally binding.
A separate watchdog group that brought a lawsuit in Washington, D.C., made similar arguments, pointing to Trump’s public defense of the fund even after Blanche’s comments.
The judge overseeing that case, U.S.
District Judge Richard Leon, was not swayed enough to deny a preliminary bid to block the fund, and found that the case appeared to be moot, given the DOJ’s statements denying it would come to pass.
But Leon issued a stern warning to the administration: “Don’t play possum with this court.”
At last week’s hearing in Virginia, Brinkema expressed similar misgivings about Trump’s comments and Blanche’s reluctance to put a pledge not to create the fund in writing.
These misgivings will likely continue to bubble now that the DOJ has declined to submit the declaration and the litigation will likely continue.
Speakers
4speakers22%attributed speech544writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Selected voice
100%flagged-word coverageRichard Leon
15 attributed words9.9% of attributed speech67% writer coverage
Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Analysis
Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.