DOJ rejects judge's request to certify $1.8 billion fund nixed

Zoe Tillman, Bloomberg News on Jun 19, 2026

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

The Justice Department rebuffed a U.S. judge’s invitation for top officials to submit a signed statement under oath that a $1.8 billion fund for what the administration described as victims of political “weaponization” will not happen.

In a filing on Friday, the Justice Department said that such declarations were “unnecessary” and that compelling statements from high-level officials “implicates serious separation of powers concerns.” A department lawyer wrote that Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s congressional testimony and submissions to the court from government attorneys already “were made against the backdrop of serious penalties for falsity.”

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema ruled last week that a lawsuit challenging the fund can go forward, rejecting the Justice Department’s assurances that past statements from Blanche and other officials that they were dropping the fund plan were sufficient. But the judge indicated that she would be inclined to end the case if she received a declaration to that effect made under penalty of perjury from Blanche, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward.

Brinkema had said that if the government did not submit the confirmation that she believed was necessary, she would set a full schedule for next steps in the legal fight.

The Virginia judge separately entered an order blocking action on the fund while the litigation is pending, finding that a group of challengers made a strong enough showing at an early phase of the case that the plan was likely unlawful. Democrats and other critics have denounced the proposal as a “slush fund” for President Donald Trump’s allies.

Skye Perryman, president of Democracy Forward, which represents the fund challengers in the lawsuit, said in a statement that it was “telling” that Blanche and other top officials “continue to refuse to say under oath the Slush Fund is dead and won’t operate in the future.”

The fund was part of a settlement to resolve Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit seeking to hold the Internal Revenue Service liable for a leak of his tax information. Blanche has said the government will honor another part of the deal that immunizes Trump, his family members and his businesses from audits or other federal probes related to past tax filings.

Separately, a federal judge in Florida who presided over the IRS case is weighing whether to reopen those proceedings to vet allegations from a group of former federal judges that the settlement was the result of a fraud on the court.

The case is Floyd v. Department of Justice, 26-cv-01399, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria).

_____