Story · June 21, 2026

Judge Extends Temporary Block on Trump’s Anti-Weaponization Fund

Court block Confidence 5/5
★★★★☆Fuckup rating 4/5
Serious fuckup Ranked from 1 to 5 stars based on the scale of the screwup and fallout.
Correction: Correction: the court entered a preliminary injunction on June 12, 2026 and ordered defendants to file a sworn declaration by June 19, 2026; it did not issue a final ruling on the fund’s lawfulness.
Judge Extends Temporary Block on Trump’s Anti-Weaponization Fund

A federal judge on June 12 kept the Trump administration’s Anti-Weaponization Fund blocked, extending a court order that prevents the program from moving ahead while the lawsuit continues. The judge did not issue a final ruling on whether the fund is lawful. ([apnews.com](https://apnews.com/article/d8345ce8f5c7f8062b858e54c396c450))

The order also kept pressure on the administration to give the court added assurance that the fund will not be revived. In the filing, the judge directed senior officials to submit a declaration under penalty of perjury saying they will not take any action to create or operate the fund, and that it will not proceed under any name. AP reported that the judge gave the parties a week to work out an agreement for that declaration. ([democracyforward.org](https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/189115193387.pdf))

The fund was announced by the Justice Department on May 18 as part of the settlement resolving President Donald J. Trump v. Internal Revenue Service, the tax-return leak case. DOJ said the settlement would provide a formal apology, no monetary payment to Trump or his family, and a separate claims process tied to the Anti-Weaponization Fund. The department said the fund would receive $1.776 billion from the judgment fund. ([justice.gov](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-anti-weaponization-fund))

The legal fight followed quickly. The June 12 order left the administration with no way to launch the program while the block remains in place, and it pushed the dispute toward a narrower question: whether the government can give the court the assurances it has been ordered to provide before the case is decided on the merits. ([apnews.com](https://apnews.com/article/d8345ce8f5c7f8062b858e54c396c450))

Read next

Reader action

What can you do about this?

Call or write your members of Congress and tell them the exact outcome you want. Ask for a written response and refer to the bill, hearing, committee fight, or vote tied to this story.

Timing: Before the next committee hearing or floor vote.

This card only appears on stories where there is a concrete, lawful, worthwhile step a reader can actually take.

Comments

Threaded replies, voting, and reports are live. New users still go through screening on their first approved comments.

Log in to comment


No comments yet. Be the first reasonably on-topic person here.