Anti-Weaponisation Fund: Trump Weighs Future of USD 1.8 Billion Plan After Court-Ordered Pause

US President Donald Trump was weighing whether to continue with a USD 1.8 billion compensation fund for allies. A person familiar with Trumps thinking said the review came as legal and political pressure grew. The Justice Department also said it would pause steps linked to the fund. The pause followed a court order that stopped work on it for now.

Representative image

The Trump administration had backed the USD 1.776 billion Anti-Weaponisation Fund as a remedy tied to Trumps IRS lawsuit. Officials said it addressed what they described as weaponised law enforcement during the Biden administration. The fund was meant to resolve the lawsuit over the leak of Trumps tax returns. The announcement came about two weeks before the latest developments.

Trump fund faces Justice Department pause and court scrutiny

The Justice Department said it would follow a ruling by a federal judge in Virginia on Friday. That order halted plans for the fund until further arguments later in June. The department said it disagreed strongly with the decision. It also said the fund was open to anybody who was so weaponized, targeted, or persecuted, whether they were Democrat, Republican, Conservative, Independent, or otherwise.

In Virginia, US District Judge Leonie Brinkema temporarily stopped the funds formation. Judge Brinkema also set a June 12 hearing. The hearing will consider whether to extend the order blocking the governments move. The legal setback added to questions that had surfaced soon after the fund was announced. Critics also raised concerns about how payments might be decided.

Trump fund draws Republican oversight concerns in Congress

Some Trump supporters welcomed the fund, including participants in the January 6, 2021, riot at the US Capitol. Yet many Republicans in Congress reacted with concern. Lawmakers questioned oversight and warned about possible payouts to riot participants. They urged the administration to set limits or drop the plan. The backlash grew as details of control and review remained unclear.

Senate Republicans said the issue affected work on funding for immigration enforcement agencies. Republicans left Washington 10 days earlier without passing legislation to fund Trumps immigration enforcement agencies. When lawmakers returned on Monday, some said votes were missing. They said the Homeland Security spending bill lacked support without White House limits. The fund became a sticking point in negotiations.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune said the White House should end the fund. "I do think the best way to handle it is if the administration decides to shut it down themselves,\" Thune told reporters. Senators also questioned acting Attorney General Todd Blanche in a closed meeting last month. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas called it one of the roughest meetings Ive seen in my entire time in the Senate.

Trump discussed the fund with House Speaker Mike Johnson during a meeting on Monday. A person granted anonymity described the conversation as private. Another person familiar with the matter said Trump was reconsidering whether to proceed. The possible pullback reflected the legal obstacles and political resistance. Questions about oversight continued to fuel internal Republican criticism.

Trump fund linked to IRS settlement faces Florida judge order

A separate court action in Florida also raised pressure around the settlement behind the fund. US District Judge Kathleen Williams, overseeing Trumps IRS case, ordered Trumps lawyers to address serious claims. Critics alleged Trump dropped claims to avoid review of an illegal deal. Judge Williams gave them until June 12 to respond in writing. The judge also asked about collusion and possible fraud on the court.

With court dates set for June 12 in Virginia and Florida, the fund remained on hold. The Justice Department said it would comply with the Virginia ruling while disputing it. Republican lawmakers continued to demand clear limits and stronger oversight. Trump was still weighing next steps, as legal challenges and political concerns kept the future uncertain.

With inputs from PTI