Alexandria, Virginia — A federal judge on Friday continued to block the Justice Department's nearly $1.8 billion "anti-weaponization" fund, expressing skepticism with the Trump administration's claims that the controversial program is not moving forward.

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema granted a preliminary injunction that indefinitely prevents the Trump administration from creating or operating the controversial fund. She had issued an order last month that temporarily blocked the Justice Department from taking any action related to the fund to ensure that no payouts were made while she considered a request for longer relief sought by plaintiffs challenging the program.

Brinkema gave the government one week to submit a sworn declaration signed by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, under penalty of perjury, that asserts "they will not take any action to create or operate the Anti-Weaponization Fund, and that the Anti-Weaponization Fund will not proceed in any manner, or under any name," according to a brief order from the court. If the Justice Department submits the declaration by June 19, the judge said she is likely to drop the case.

During a brief hearing, Brinkema rejected the Justice Department's arguments that the case is moot because of Blanche's contention to Congress that the department is not moving forward with the fund. Andrew Block, a Justice Department lawyer, had also said in court papers that the fund "had not been set up and is now not going forward."

But Brinkema said none of those statements about the fund's future were made under penalty of perjury, so "that means the issue really is not moot." She also cited recent statements from President Trump expressing support for the fund as demonstrating a lack of "uncontestable evidence" that the program would not be revived in some form, and said there is no "absolute certainty" the fund won't "rear its head" in the future.

When the president says he wants something, Brinkema said, "that's a pretty good indicator there will be an incentive and motive to make it happen."

Brinkema also questioned Block about why Blanche hasn't rescinded an order from May 18 that established the fund, or committed to writing his assertion that it would not be moving forward. Block said he hadn't spoken to the acting attorney general about the matter.

In response, the judge said she couldn't believe, "given the significance of the case," that Block would not have spoken with Blanche about why he hasn't rescinded the order creating the "anti-weaponization" fund, and said it creates a "huge gap" in the case record. 

While Block, who appeared alone on behalf of the Justice Department, noted that no members have been appointed to administer the fund, Brinkema was unpersuaded. 

She called it "problematic" that nearly $1.8 billion in taxpayer dollars could go to people who were convicted of crimes stemming from the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol.

The judge also read directly from a friend-of-the-court brief submitted by Sens. Cory Booker, a New Jersey Democrat, and Bill Cassidy, a Louisiana Republican, that raised concerns with the fund, and said the public interest in the case is "very, very strong" in support of the plaintiffs suing the Trump administration over the program.

The two senators said the fund presented an "immediate and dire threat" to the constitutional order and was designed to provide payouts to people involved in the Jan. 6 assault.

Pooja Boisture, who appeared in court on behalf of the plaintiffs, said that given the Justice Department's position about the status of the fund, there would be no harm to the government by blocking the program while the case proceeds. 

Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, which is representing the plaintiffs challenging the fund, lauded the decision from Brinkema.

"This ruling is a significant victory for the Constitution, the rule of law, and people in America," she said in a statement. "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. We look forward to continuing this challenge on behalf of our clients."

The Justice Department announced the fund last month as part of a deal to settle a civil lawsuit Mr. Trump filed against the IRS in January over the leak of his tax returns by a former government contractor. The $1.776 billion fund aimed to "provide a systematic process to hear and redress claims of others who suffered weaponization and lawfare," according to the Justice Department.

The settlement gave five people appointed by the attorney general the authority to distribute payouts. The Justice Department did not specify who could benefit from the fund, but shortly after it was announced, several people convicted of crimes related to the Jan. 6 attack and Trump allies said they planned to apply for relief.

The case in Virginia was brought by a former prosecutor who worked on cases involving the Jan. 6 attack, as well as a California professor, the city of New Haven, Connecticut, and two nonprofit organizations, Common Cause and the National Abortion Federation.

While Brinkema on Friday granted the preliminary injunction sought by those plaintiffs, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., declined to provide similar relief to a different set of plaintiffs in a separate case. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon accepted Blanche's vow that the Justice Department is not proceeding with the program, but warned, "Don't play possum with this court."

Meanwhile, the Trump administration is fighting a bid by dozens of retired federal judges to reopen the president's original lawsuit against the IRS, on the grounds that the settlement that led to the "anti-weaponization" fund may have been a "fraud on the Court." The Justice Department called the effort "frivolous" in a filing late Friday, arguing both that the government had the authority to reach the settlement and that the former judges do not have the legal right to contest it.