DOJ refuses to issue signed declaration verifying 'Anti-Weaponization Fund' is dead
Source: ABC News
June 19, 2026, 3:03 PM
The Justice Department on Friday refused to issue a signed declaration from acting Attorney General Todd Blanche verifying that it no longer intends to pursue President Donald Trump's "Anti-Weaponization Fund.". The DOJ's refusal comes after a federal judge last week gave the administration seven days to verify in a declaration that it wouldn't create the controversial fund.
"Such declarations are unnecessary and the compelled testimony of senior officials from the Executive Branch implicates serious separation of powers concerns," the DOJ said in a court filing Friday to U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, who last week issued an injunction indefinitely blocking the administration from creating the fund.
Brinkema had given the Trump administration seven days to verify in a declaration from acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent that it wouldn't create the fund, which she said would likely lead to the dismissal of the lawsuit she was overseeing against the fund.
But in their filing Friday, the department argued that Brinkema's offer was a potentially unconstitutional infringement of the executive branch by effectively requiring "testimony" of top officials on a matter that the administration has repeatedly said would not be moving forward.
Read more: https://abcnews.com/US/doj-refuses-issue-signed-declaration-verifying-anti-weaponization/story?id=134040412
REFERENCE - https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143677927
Whip-poor-will
(599 posts)Someone will say Fuck NO, You SHALL and then use contempt liberally and often.
Lovie777
(24,314 posts)I thought the DOJ found a extremely old clause somewhere ....................
that would allow taxpayers' money to be paid to the coup criminals because their feeling were hurt.
liberalgunwilltravel
(1,299 posts)Impose a fine of $1,000, doubling every day for Blanche and all involved. Why civil and not criminal contempt? Because civil is self enforceable by the court. The DOJ would have to pursue a criminal contempt charge.
riversedge
(82,063 posts)LetMyPeopleVote
(183,616 posts)In a notice to a federal judge, the Trump administration says such a sworn declaration is unnecessary and a violation of separation of powers.
Trump DOJ refuses to kill âanti-weaponizationâ fund in sworn court declaration
— CVJ (@enuffsaysv.bsky.social) 2026-06-19T19:54:52.104Z
In a notice to a federal judge, the Trump administration says such a sworn declaration is âunnecessaryâ & a violation of separation of powers
MS NOW: apple.news/AnPwv1qfrTgy...
ðhell no, capitol switchboard 202-224-3121
https://www.ms.now/news/trump-doj-refuses-to-kill-anti-weaponization-fund-in-sworn-court-declaration
Instead, the Department of Justice continued to rely on Acting Attorney General Todd Blanches congressional testimony that the administration is not moving forward with the fund.
In a notice to the court, the DOJ wrote, Such declarations are unnecessary and the compelled testimony of senior officials from the Executive Branch implicates serious separation of powers concerns.
The refusal by Blanche and the DOJ to put a pledge in writing not to create the fund aimed at compensating those who believe they were the victims of alleged prosecutorial overreach is likely to spark political backlash, especially on Capitol Hill where Blanches permanent nomination to head the department is pending.
The DOJ maintains its public statements both in Blanches congressional testimony and in written court filings and hearings should be sufficient. All these statements were made under the backdrop of serious penalties for falsity, it writes. So there is no reason why declarations should affect the Courts mootness analysis.,,,,,
At last weeks hearing in Virginia, Brinkema expressed similar misgivings about Trumps comments and Blanches reluctance to put a pledge not to create the fund in writing. These misgivings will likely continue to bubble now that the DOJ has declined to submit the declaration and the litigation will likely continue.
There are at least two separate federal court cases. In addition to the Virginia case described above, there is a separate lawsuit brought by 35 retired federal judges seeking to litigate (i) whether this slush fund was a "fraud on the court" and (ii) whether there was a valid lawsuit in the first place because there was no case or controversy. trump's attorneys refused to answer the courts issues in that case. This will be fun to watch
DoBW
(3,388 posts)sneaky little pricks
mdbl
(8,938 posts)All in line with the overall criminality of the Dump administration.