You may have forgotten about the controversial “anti-weaponization” fund — that $1.8 billion taxpayer fund that would compensate individuals alleging they were targeted by a “weaponized” government — and rightly so; the issue has largely faded from headlines since Attorney General Todd Blanche announced its death in an eleventh hour bid to secure his confirmation last month.

But the Trump administration hasn’t forgotten and they’re still fighting to keep it alive.

The fight is returning to federal court in Virginia on Friday. U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema is set to hear arguments over the government’s bid to dismiss the most successful legal challenge to the fund. This is the same judge who blocked the fund indefinitely in June.

When Brinkema blocked the fund, she gave the government an opportunity to declare — under penalty of perjury — that it would not move forward with the fund in any way, shape or form in the future. If they did that, she indicated she would likely dismiss the case.

The government did not file that declaration. But on Friday, the Justice Department will ask the same judge to dismiss the case, the exact thing the judge likely would have done had the government filed it in response the first time she requested it.

This feels like a case of — to use a movie quote — “so, you’re telling me there’s a chance?”

Democracy Forward President and CEO Skye Perryman, whose organization brought the lawsuit, thinks there is still a chance.

“It’s very clear that this administration had no interest in halting the fund,” Perryman told MS NOW, “They have halted the fund because of the court order that’s in place blocking the fund.”

“This administration continues to try to avoid accountability from the courts and from the people, which is why they’re trying to move to dismiss a case about something that is clearly unlawful and something that’s very unpopular,” Perryman said. “That is their M.O., is to try to dismiss cases in order to avoid accountability.”

The Trump administration’s bid to dismiss the case now is a big deal. If they win in court, the legal challenge, including the block on the fund, would disappear. That would mean the government would no longer be barred from taking steps to create the fund and compensate individuals who allege they were harmed by “weaponization” of the justice system, including convicted Jan. 6 rioters.

The DOJ has maintained the fund is dead and the issue is moot.

“The Justice Department and Attorney General have now said countless times, in public, to this Court in briefs, and to Congress in sworn testimony that the idea of the Anti-Weaponization Fund at the heart of this case is dead and will not go forward,” the lawyer representing the government wrote in a court filing. “The time has come to stop this inquisition.”

They are asking Brinkema to dismiss the case because they believe the plaintiffs don’t have a case.

“The United States thus moves to dismiss this civil action on justiciability grounds—not because the Fund will continue (it will not)—but to adhere to core Article III principles,” they wrote.

Blanche did announce that the fund was dead. But what he didn’t do is critical.

In a pair of documents posted on social media in early August, Blanche rescinded the fund and clarified the scope of the immunity deal that would protect Trump, his children and his business from existing IRS audits.

Blanche’s rescission order said, “The General’s May 18, 2026 Order establishing the Anti-Weaponization Fund is rescinded and shall have no force or effect.”

“No Members were appointed; no funds were transferred; no process for receiving claims was established; no claims were paid,” he continued. “This order establishes, beyond, any reasonable doubt, that there is no Fund.”

Note: The order was written in present tense.

Blanche did not commit that no such fund would exist in the future. No part of the document indicated that the government could not create a similar fund — perhaps under a different name — in the future.

Blanche also claimed to limit the scope of the IRS immunity deal. His unsigned release said, “It is the DOJ’s interpretation that the Order only has any effect, including on the release of claims, on the named parties in the lawsuit referenced in the order.”

The named parties in the lawsuit only include Trump, his two eldest sons and the Trump Organization. The original document that memorialized the deal conferred immunity to a much broader group, including “any of the Plaintiffs or related or affiliated individuals (including, without limitation, family or others filing jointly), or parties including trusts, parent, sister, or related companies, affiliates, and subsidiaries.”

But the document that purported to limit the group eligible for immunity was unsigned. That matters because it means it’s not a legally binding order signed by the attorney general. So the original, broader order apparently remains in effect.

Days after Blanche posted these documents, the coalition challenging the fund in Virginia revised its complaint. Now the suit also challenges the legality of the immunity deal, which seems to be alive and well. Brinkema has not yet ruled on those claims.

The moves made by Blanche last month hushed much of the bipartisan backlash to the fund and the immunity deal. But the issue is far from dead, and that’s why challengers want to keep the legal fight alive.

The coalition challenging the fund in court, which includes a former Jan. 6 prosecutor, highlighted Blanche’s refusal to commit that the fund will remain dead in the future.

“This present-tense wordsmithing assuredly does not affirm, under penalty of perjury, that ‘the [anti-weaponization fund] will not proceed in any manner, or under any name’ either now or in the future,” they wrote in a court filing. 

That quoted language is what Brinkema had requested the government swear under penalty of perjury in June. 

“Defendants’ refusal to provide this assurance is unsurprising,” the plaintiffs continued. “President Trump has made clear his intent that January 6 criminals and insurrectionists be compensated. AG Blanche, too, said that he believes that victims of so-called weaponization should be paid.”

They’re urging Brinkema to keep this case alive. If she grants the government’s request to dismiss, so go all guardrails that block the Trump administration from creating the fund — whether it goes by “anti-weaponization” or a new name entirely.

The post Did you forget about the ‘anti-weaponization’ fund? The Department of Justice hasn’t. appeared first on MS NOW.

From MS Now.