A federal judge in Alexandria, Virginia, says she isn’t ready to shut down a lawsuit tied to the Trump administration’s $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” even though Justice Department lawyers argue the fund no longer exists.
U.S. District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema heard arguments Friday on the DOJ’s request to dismiss the case. Justice Department attorneys pointed to a formal rescission order issued by Attorney General Todd Blanche in August, along with repeated statements from Blanche, including sworn testimony before Congress, that the fund has been eliminated.
Brinkema wasn’t convinced the underlying dispute is settled. “The issues that underly this case are still alive and kicking in my view,” she said during the hearing.
She agreed the fund itself is gone. “That entity is gone,” Brinkema said, acknowledging Blanche’s sworn confirmation-hearing testimony on the matter. But she raised a different question: whether the DOJ’s regular Judgment Fund is now serving the same purpose.
The Judgment Fund is a permanent U.S. Treasury account, managed by the Bureau of the Fiscal Service, that covers court judgments and legal settlements against the federal government. Brinkema described it as “a less transparent structure” and suggested some people convicted under the FACE Act have already received substantial payouts through it.
The Vaughn Case
Brinkema confirmed she was referring specifically to the case of Paul Vaughn of Centerville, Tennessee. Vaughn was convicted in January 2024 for his role in blockading an abortion clinic in Mount Juliet, Tennessee, in March 2021. He was later pardoned and received a payout from the DOJ’s Judgment Fund that he has told Fox News was in the “seven figures.”
Brinkema said her broader concern is the use of taxpayer money to promote particular political views, citing both FACE Act convictions of pro-life activists and people convicted for their roles in the January 6 attack, which she described as an attempt “to overthrow the legitimate election.”
DOJ attorney Andrew Block pressed the plaintiff on what remedy could even be sought now that, in his words, “the fund is dead.” Brinkema said the case is far from reaching that stage but suggested possibilities, including putting a neutral party in charge of any fund rather than someone from the DOJ.
“A proper, unbiased look… There’s been too much talk from members of the administration, which undercut [DOJ’s] position,” Brinkema said. “They contradict themselves all the time.”
Brinkema closed the hearing by saying she plans to issue a new discovery order in the coming days, signaling the case will continue.
