A federal judge in Virginia has indefinitely blocked the Trump administration’s $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” extending a temporary restraining order into a preliminary injunction and demanding written proof that the controversial scheme has been permanently abandoned. District Judge Leonie Brinkema ruled on Friday that public assurances from the Department of Justice were insufficient, giving officials one week to submit sworn declarations signed by both the acting attorney general and the treasury secretary confirming the fund will not proceed. The judge warned the government not to “play possum,” reflecting deep scepticism over whether the fund—designed to compensate individuals who claim they were victims of political targeting by federal agencies—has truly been laid to rest.

The fund was announced in February as part of a settlement between President Donald Trump and the Internal Revenue Service, which he had sued over the alleged leaking of his tax returns. The agreement would have diverted $1.776 billion—a figure echoing the year of American independence—to pay those who felt they had been “weaponised” by the Justice Department or other federal bodies. Critics across the political spectrum swiftly condemned the plan as a slush fund lacking congressional oversight, and multiple lawsuits were filed to halt its implementation. Although Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told lawmakers earlier this month that the administration would not move forward with the fund, the settlement agreement and internal departmental directives that created it have never been formally rescinded, leaving open the possibility of future revival.

Viewed from Washington, the standoff illustrates the persistent friction between the executive branch and a judiciary increasingly willing to scrutinise the administration’s use of settlement authority. The case has drawn international attention: Brazilian financial daily Valor Econômico reported on the “fundo anti-instrumentalização” and the judge’s demand for sworn testimony, reflecting broader global interest in the resilience of American institutional checks. Analysts in London note that Brinkema’s insistence on a formal, legally binding guarantee—rather than accepting oral assurances—signals a judiciary determined to prevent the executive from using procedural ambiguity to sidestep legal challenges. The judge, a Clinton appointee, indicated she would likely dismiss the case as moot if the sworn declarations are provided, but her order keeps the injunction in place indefinitely until that condition is met.

The administration now faces a choice: either formally abandon the fund and provide the required sworn statements, or risk a prolonged legal battle that could further expose the mechanisms of the proposed compensation system. Even if the case is dismissed, the underlying settlement agreement between Trump and the IRS remains in effect, leaving a legal framework that could theoretically be activated at a later date. For now, the injunction ensures that no money can be transferred and no claims processed, effectively freezing the initiative. The coming week will test whether the administration is willing to permanently relinquish a tool that critics say was designed to reward political allies—and whether the courts will accept its assurances at face value.