Anyone hoping to receive restitution through the newly-formed Anti-Weaponization Fund that the Trump administration's Justice Department (DOJ) announced just over a week ago will have to wait at least temporarily for it to go into effect, after a federal judge put in place a TRO (temporary restraining order) on Friday morning:
🚨 A federal judge temporarily halts operation of the DOJ's Anti-Weaponization Fund pending further briefing, ordering the government not to transfer or disburse funds before a June 12 hearing. pic.twitter.com/trsAOnXJah
— SCOTUS Wire (@scotus_wire) May 29, 2026
U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, appointed to the federal bench in Northern VA by Pres. Bill Clinton, said the court would need to hold a hearing first.
Federal judge temporarily blocks Justice Department's $1.778 billion 'Anti-Weaponization Fund.' The order from U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema states that the DOJ is prevented "from taking any further action pursuant to the creation or operation of the Anti-Weaponization… pic.twitter.com/6RfMZcLx9T
— Fox News Politics (@foxnewspolitics) May 29, 2026
Federal judge temporarily blocks Justice Department's $1.778 billion 'Anti-Weaponization Fund.' The order from U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema states that the DOJ is prevented "from taking any further action pursuant to the creation or operation of the Anti-Weaponization Fund."
U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema’s order on Friday comes in response to a lawsuit filed by a group of plaintiffs that includes a former career prosecutor who alleges he was fired for his handling of the Jan. 6 cases. The plaintiffs are suing to block payout from the fund.
The order, which lists the Justice Department as a defendant, states that the DOJ is blocked "from taking any further action pursuant to the creation or operation of the Anti-Weaponization Fund, which includes the transferring of money to the Fund; the consideration of any claims submitted to the Fund; and the disbursing of any funds from the Fund."
The judge also set a hearing for June 12 in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia.
Some of the plaintiffs in the case, according to the Fox News story linked above, include:
- Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Floyd, an Alexandria resident who prosecuted Capitol riot cases in Washington, D.C., before he was fired last year by then-Attorney General Pam Bondi.
- California State University Channel Islands professor Jonathan Caravello, who was acquitted of an assault charge. He was accused of throwing a tear gas canister at federal agents during a 2025 protest against an immigration raid at a Camarillo, California, cannabis farm.
Also named as plaintiffs are the government watchdog Common Cause, the city of New Haven, Connecticut, and the National Abortion Federation, an association of abortion providers.
New Haven claims the Trump administration officials have targeted it and other municipalities that they perceive to be "sanctuary" cities...
Readers might recall that this could have possibly been a moot point, had Congress passed the reconciliation package containing the fund back on May. 21st. Leader John Thune chose to give up on passing it, and instead gave the Senate an early vacation before Memorial Day weekend.
A Justice Department spokesperson, speaking to Fox News Digital Friday about the ruling, said they are "extremely confident" the fund is Consitutionally sound, and would overcome any "policy preferences" of biases judges:
"The Department remains extremely confident in the legality of the Anti-Weaponization Fund which is supported by ample precedent, including Obama-era settlements. We will not allow the policy preferences of judges to interfere with our efforts to provide restitution to victims of lawfare."
My colleague Bob Hoge wrote about the provisions of the settlement fund - which was made in the wake of Pres. Trump dropping his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS - getting confirmed on May 18th.
California's Gov. Gavin Newsom swiftly vowed to have his state confiscate 100 percent of any disbursed funds to Golden State citizens by taxation. But Newsom wasn't the only state-level executive making noise over this, with other blue state governors signaling they would also implement a tax. Among them was NY Democrat Kathy Hochul, who decided to get in a silly tiff with Trump this week over his fandom of the NBA's Knicks.
READ MORE: Updated: Trump Drops $10B IRS Lawsuit As Democrats Freak Out Over $1.7B Settlement Fund
Outrage: Gavin Newsom Vows to Confiscate 100 Percent From California MAGA Victims of Biden Lawfare
Per a Politico piece published Friday, Hochul told media on Thursday: “I have no problem with there being consequences for people who accept that money.”
As I am not a lawyer of any persuasion, let's listen to the take by Law Professor Jonathan Turley on the matter; he thinks it is "likely lawful":
While I was critical of how the Administration created the "Anti-Weaponization Fund," it is likely lawful. That cannot be said about Gavin Newsom's announced 100% tax on anyone receiving such funds. https://t.co/XAnaGFZ4Py Such a confiscatory tax would be ripe for challenge.
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) May 28, 2026
You can read the full order here.
This is a developing story. RedState will provide updates as warranted.
Editor's Note: Do you enjoy RedState's conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member