Federal judge indefinitely blocks Trump’s $1.8 billion payout fund

A federal judge on Friday indefinitely blocked President Donald Trump’s proposed $1.8 billion payout fund, which is still being challenged in court despite Justice Department officials claiming the effort is not moving forward.

At a hearing in Virginia federal court, U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema issued a preliminary injunction blocking the fund, which the administration sought to create for those who claim they were improperly investigated by the government. She forcefully rejected the government’s arguments that the case was moot, citing Trump’s praising of the idea and acting attorney general Todd Blanche’s unwillingness to say under the penalty of perjury that the administration would not try to stand it up in the future.

She gave the government one week to enter a “clear, unambiguous” declaration in the court record that the fund is dead, at which time she will consider dismissing the case.

A Justice Department attorney argued that he, as an officer of the court, had put in a court filing to Brinkema that the fund has “not been set up and is now not going forward.” But Brinkema said that wasn’t sufficient, making clear that the declaration she desired needed to be signed by the treasury secretary and Blanche for her to see the government’s claim that the fund was permanently abandoned as legitimate.

“We don’t have the kind of absolute certainty that this fund wouldn’t rear its head” again, she said.

Brinkema had temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s plans for the fund in late May after several plaintiffs represented by the group Democracy Forward filed suit and asked the judge in an emergency filing to halt the fund. She ordered the administration to pause its creation and barred them from disbursing any money until she could hold Friday’s hearing.

But then last week, Justice Department officials called off the effort themselves in a pair of court filings — informing Brinkema and a D.C. federal judge overseeing a similar legal challenge that plans for the fund had been called off and arguing the issue was now moot.

Separately, Blanche told members of Congress that the administration had scrapped plans for the fund after intense and bipartisan political backlash. But he has resisted calls to personally put that pledge in writing or to publicly amend the agreement that created the fund, an out-of-court deal the president’s personal lawyers struck with the Justice Department to resolve three legal claims Trump had filed against the government.

In court Friday, Brinkema cited that lack of clarity from Blanche, as well as Trump’s own conflicting statements about the fund’s viability, as core reasons for her preliminary injunction order. The president, she said, told NBC’s “Meet the Press” that “the weaponization fund is a great idea” and that he would be “disappointed” if Republicans didn’t get it approved.

Brinkema also quoted a statement Trump made about her, that he had dropped the fund because a “radical-left judge ruled against it.”

Those comments, the judge said in court, indicated lawmakers could have “some incentive or motive” to revive the fund at the president’s behest.

Brinkema’s decision was at odds with that of another federal judge, who declined to bar the Trump administration from pursuing the fund at a hearing Wednesday in D.C. federal court. U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon said the case appeared to be moot because Blanche had stated publicly and Justice Department lawyers then repeated in court filings that the fund would not be established.

Leon added that he is still considering a request from the plaintiffs in that case for a preliminary injunction, and he warned the Justice Department not to revive the fund.

“Don’t play possum with this court,” he told a department lawyer at Wednesday’s hearing.

Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.) filed a briefing in the Virginia case urging Brinkema to continue with her inquiry into the fund’s legality despite the Justice Department’s reversal.

They called the proposal a “threat to our constitutional democracy” and alleged the fund was an “improper and unconstitutional transfer of taxpayer dollars, including to those who engaged in a violent insurrection against the United States and its democratically elected representatives … on Jan. 6, 2021.”

Brinkema said she found the senators’ arguments compelling, telling the court that she believed there was a possibility for irreparable harm to the American taxpayer and the sanctity of the separation of powers if the fund were allowed to move forward.

“The public interest in this case is very, very strong in my view,” Brinkema said.

“This ruling is a significant victory for the Constitution, the rule of law, and people in America,” said Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward. “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.”

Plans for the fund were first made public last month as the president and members of his family agreed to withdraw a lawsuit they had filed against the IRS over the leak of their tax returns. Saying they had resolved Trump’s claims, including two others he filed before his return to the White House, outside of court, Justice Department leaders pledged the fund would be open to anyone who believed they were victims of a politicized justice system regardless of their party affiliation.

Still, the plan quickly drew the ire of Democrats and some Republican lawmakers who characterized it as a slush fund aimed at delivering payouts to Trump’s allies and supporters, including, potentially, those convicted of assaulting police officers during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Some also took issue with a separate provision of the agreement that appears to shield Trump, his family and affiliated entities from any past tax claims the government might have against them.

The settlement also quickly drew court challenges including the Virginia and D.C. cases and separate litigation in California and Florida.

Separately, government attorneys are expected to file a defense Friday of their private deal with the Trumps in federal court in Florida.

The judge who had been overseeing the family’s suit against the IRS before its deal with the Justice Department has said she is considering reopening the case to explore whether the initial lawsuit and the settlement amounted to an abuse of the court process.

U.S. District Judge Kathleen M. Williams had previously questioned whether the parties in the matter were “sufficiently adverse,” because Trump was both a plaintiff in his personal capacity and, as president, overseeing the agencies he was suing.

_

• Salvador Rizzo contributed.