WASHINGTON — A federal court declined Wednesday to grant a government oversight organization’s emergency request to immediately halt the Trump administration’s controversial $1.776 billion compensation program designed to pay individuals who say they were targeted by weaponized federal agencies.
However, the presiding judge concluded the court session by delivering a stern warning to President Donald Trump’s legal team: “Don’t play possum with this court,” U.S. District Judge Richard Leon cautioned a Justice Department lawyer.
Leon delivered his decision from the bench, siding with the administration’s position that the oversight group’s legal challenge has become irrelevant since acting Attorney General Todd Blanche informed lawmakers last month that the government is abandoning its plans for the compensation program. Leon, who received his judicial appointment from Republican President George W. Bush, stated he is accepting Blanche’s assurance at this time.
The judge’s decision to deny the temporary restraining order doesn’t represent the final resolution of the government’s “Anti-Weaponization Fund.” Leon indicated he will review a separate petition from the plaintiffs — Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington — seeking a preliminary injunction that would halt fund distributions on a longer-term basis.
Another federal judge in Alexandria, Virginia, has already issued a temporary halt to the fund’s activities. However, that directive from U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema will lapse Friday unless she chooses to extend it following a hearing scheduled for the same date.
The administration established the compensation program last month to settle Trump’s legal action against the Internal Revenue Service regarding the unauthorized disclosure of his tax documents. The Justice Department has not yet assembled the five-person panel that will establish payout guidelines, meaning no funds have been distributed and no applications have been processed.
The compensation program has sparked intense opposition across party lines. Even numerous supporters of the Republican president oppose providing payments to individuals who participated in the U.S. Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021. During his appearance before Congress, Blanche declined to eliminate the possibility that rioters who attacked Capitol police officers could qualify for compensation.
“We are not moving forward with the fund, period,” Blanche stated during the House committee hearing.
“Not moving forward ever?” inquired Rep. Grace Meng, a New York Democrat.
“Correct,” Blanche responded.
Leon questioned Justice Department attorney Andrew Block about why Blanche hasn’t officially withdrawn his May 18 directive creating the fund.
“I don’t know the reason for that,” Block replied.
Block contended that Blanche’s congressional testimony is adequate to render the watchdog organization’s legal arguments moot. He further maintained that the group lacks proper legal standing to pursue their claims.
The plaintiffs’ legal representative Nikhel Sus pointed out that Trump himself provided conflicting statements to Blanche’s testimony. In a June 3 interview, occurring one day following Blanche’s congressional appearance, Trump voiced his backing for proceeding with the fund despite the Virginia judge’s adverse ruling.
“On paper, the fund is still a legally operating entity,” Sus argued. “Nothing has changed.”
A federal judge in Florida overseeing Trump’s case against the IRS has directed Trump’s legal team to address “grievous allegations” from settlement opponents who claim the president dropped his lawsuit to evade judicial review of an unlawful agreement. U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams has given them until Friday to provide written responses to accusations of collusion and whether the case should be reopened because the court was the “victim of a fraud.”
In Virginia, lawyers from the legal advocacy organization Democracy Forward are pursuing a court directive to stop the fund’s launch and block the Trump administration from making any payments from it. The Virginia case plaintiffs include a terminated prosecutor and a college instructor who was cleared of charges related to assaulting federal officers during a demonstration.
