A federal judge ordered three senior Trump administration officials to declare under oath that a nearly $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund is dead, but the Justice Department refused Friday, arguing such compelled testimony raises serious separation of powers concerns.
Judge Leonie Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia indefinitely blocked the fund last week and gave acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward seven days to swear under penalty of perjury that it would not move forward. Federal courts were closed Friday for the Juneteenth holiday, meaning any response from Brinkema likely will not come until Monday at the earliest.
What the Left Is Saying
Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, which is representing plaintiffs in the case, called the DOJ filing telling in a statement to The Hill. "It is telling that even after the federal court gave them a week, the Acting Attorney General and other senior administration officials continue to refuse to say under oath that the Slush Fund is dead and won't operate in the future," Perryman said. "Nor have they provided any information under oath about their compliance with the court's prior directives."
Perryman's organization has argued that without sworn commitments, there is nothing preventing the fund from proceeding once litigation ends. The plaintiffs include former federal prosecutors who argue the fund represents an unlawful use of government resources.
What the Right Is Saying
DOJ attorneys pushed back sharply on what they characterized as overreach by the judiciary. In a filing Friday, Andrew Block, senior counsel to Associate Attorney General Woodward, wrote that sworn declarations should not factor into the judge's decision-making and that the court lacks authority to compel such testimony.
"Such declarations are unnecessary and the compelled testimony of senior officials from the Executive Branch implicates serious separation of powers concerns," Block wrote. He argued that administration officials had already made clear in two prior court filings that the fund "has not been set up" and would not proceed, and said those statements carry weight given potential penalties for falsity.
"There is no reason why declarations should affect the Court's mootness analysis," Block added. "Nor is there any basis for the court to compel testimony from the Associate Attorney General and two Cabinet members."
What the Numbers Show
The fund at issue totals $1.776 billion, according to filings in the case. Acting AG Blanche announced plans for the compensation fund in mid-May following a settlement between the Trump family and the Internal Revenue Service. The proposal would have authorized formal apologies and payments to individuals who claim to have experienced "weaponization and lawfare" by federal agencies.
The administration retreated from the plan as bipartisan criticism intensified. Blanche told House lawmakers in early June that the fund was "not moving forward, ever," according to statements cited in court filings. DOJ attorneys made similar representations in two prior written submissions to Brinkema's court.
The Bottom Line
The standoff sets up a potential constitutional confrontation between the judiciary and executive branch over judicial authority to compel testimony from senior administration officials. Judge Brinkema must now decide whether the DOJ's verbal assurances in court filings are sufficient, or whether sworn declarations from top officials are necessary to resolve the litigation.
If Brinkema rejects the DOJ position, she could hold officials in contempt or take other enforcement action. The case is being watched closely for signals about how courts will handle disputes over executive branch compliance with judicial orders during the current administration.