Judge issues injunction blocking administration's 'Anti-Weaponization Fund'

34||h=1&&(this.target=t[0]),t.length>=2&&(this.opts=t[1]);var n,r=this.opts||{},i=this.target;if("string"==typeof i?n=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof y?n=i.url:window.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(n=i.href),o(this,n),"data"!==this.params.protocol){var s=(""+(i&&i instanceof y&&i.method||r.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=s,this.txSize=m(r.body)||0}}),u.on("fetch-done",function(t,e){if(this.endTime=a.now(),this.params||(this.params={}),"data"===this.params.protocol)return void g("Ajax/DataUrl/Excluded");this.params.status=e?e.status:0;var n;"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var r={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:a.now()-this.startTime};s("xhr",[this.params,r,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this)})}},{}],18:[function(t,e,n){var r={};e.exports=function(t){if(t in r)return r[t];if(0===(t||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};var e=document.createElement("a"),n=window.location,o={};e.href=t,o.port=e.port;var i=e.href.split("://");!o.port&&i[1]&&(o.port=i[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===i[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=e.hostname||n.hostname,o.pathname=e.pathname,o.protocol=i[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var a=!e.protocol||":"===e.protocol||e.protocol===n.protocol,s=e.hostname===document.domain&&e.port===n.port;return o.sameOrigin=a&&(!e.hostname||s),"/"===o.pathname&&(r[t]=o),o}},{}],19:[function(t,e,n){function r(t,e){var n=t.responseType;return"json"===n&&null!==e?e:"arraybuffer"===n||"blob"===n||"json"===n?o(t.response):"text"===n||""===n||void 0===n?o(t.responseText):void 0}var o=t(22);e.exports=r},{}],20:[function(t,e,n){function r(){}function o(t,e,n,r){return function(){return u.recordSupportability("API/"+e+"/called"),i(t+e,[f.now()].concat(s(arguments)),n?null:this,r),n?void 0:this}}var i=t("handle"),a=t(31),s=t(32),c=t("ee").get("tracer"),f=t("loader"),u=t(25),d=NREUM;"undefined"==typeof window.newrelic&&(newrelic=d);var p=["setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"],l="api-",h=l+"ixn-";a(p,function(t,e){d[e]=o(l,e,!0,"api")}),d.addPageAction=o(l,"addPageAction",!0),d.setCurrentRouteName=o(l,"routeName",!0),e.exports=newrelic,d.interaction=function(){return(new r).get()};var m=r.prototype={createTracer:function(t,e){var n={},r=this,o="function"==typeof e;return i(h+"tracer",[f.now(),t,n],r),function(){if(c.emit((o?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[f.now(),r,o],n),o)try{return e.apply(this,arguments)}catch(t){throw c.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,t],n),t}finally{c.emit("fn-end",[f.now()],n)}}}};a("actionText,setName,setAttribute,save,ignore,onEnd,getContext,end,get".split(","),function(t,e){m[e]=o(h,e)}),newrelic.noticeError=function(t,e){"string"==typeof t&&(t=new Error(t)),u.recordSupportability("API/noticeError/called"),i("err",[t,f.now(),!1,e])}},{}],21:[function(t,e,n){function r(t){if(NREUM.init){for(var e=NREUM.init,n=t.split("."),r=0;r0){var r=n[n.length-1];if(f&&f 2:03President Donald Trump speaks before signing a proclamation in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, June 11, 2026. Kent Nishimura/AFP via Getty ImagesA federal judge on Friday issued an injunction blocking the Trump administration from establishing its $1.8 billion "Anti-Weaponization Fund" after expressing concerns that senior officials have not put in their commitment to not move forward with the fund in writing. U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema repeatedly cited acting Attorney General Todd Blanche's refusal to commit to not moving forward with the fund under penalty of perjury, as well as President Donald Trump's own words suggesting he was disappointed that the government might not establish the fund so that those charged in connection with the Jan. 6 Capitol attack could be compensated. "If it was up to me, I'd pay them the kind of money that they deserve. People have been destroyed. Lives have been destroyed," Trump said during an interview with NBC's Meet the Press that aired over the weekend. The fund, which was announced last month by the DOJ to compensate those who allege they were wrongly targeted under the Biden administration, was proposed in exchange for Trump agreeing to drop his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS as well as two civil claims for $230 million related to the Russia collusion investigation he faced during his first term in office and the 2022 search of his Mar-a-Lago estate -- sparking accusations of self-dealing and a bipartisan uproar over the possible use of taxpayer money to pay rioters who attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Lawyers with the Department of Justice have argued that the case is now moot, writing in a court filing last week that they would not move forward with the fund. During Friday's hearing, Judge Brinkema repeatedly pressed DOJ attorney Andrew Block on whether he knew why Blanche hasn't simply rescinded his previous order establishing the fund.  "Your honor, I don't," Block responded, saying he doesn't have the ability to speak for Blanche.  Brinkema said she "couldn't believe," given the significance of the case, that Block wouldn't have even attempted to get an answer, and said the government's unwillingness on that score created a "huge gap in the record" of the case.  President Donald Trump speaks before signing a proclamation in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, June 11, 2026.Kent Nishimura/AFP via Getty ImagesBrinkema said she didn't believe there was any injury to the government if there was an injunction in place, and gave them one week to respond with a formal declaration, under penalty of perjury, stating no "Anti-Weaponization Fund" would be established -- which she said would potentially clear the way to dismissing the case.  Judge Brinkema pointed repeatedly to President Trump's own shifting statements in recent weeks about the fund, including his pointed attack on Brinkema herself after she had temporarily paused the fund earlier this month, in which he referred to her as a "radical left judge." "When the president of the United States says he's disappointed that something is not going forward," Brinkema said, that would only add to the evidence that the fund might "rear its head" in the future.  Brinkema said at one point during the proceedings that just this week an unidentified individual had send an application for money from the fund directly to the court.  "We had to send it back," Brinkema said.  Later in the hearing, Brinkema expressed doubt about the legality of Trump's settlement that established the fund, noting a judge's order in Florida that recently asked Trump's lawyers to respond to claims they may have committed a fraud on her court.  "You think this is lawful business?" Brinkema asked Block.  At one point, Brinkema read into the record an amicus brief submitted in the lawsuit by Sen. Cory Booker and Sen. Bill Cassidy that urged her to permanently block the fund over the potential it could compensate individuals who attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.  Brinkema said the brief showed that public interest in preventing the establishment of such a fund "is very strong," and questioned the concept of nearly $1.8 billion being directed to such a small subset of individuals that a significant number of Americans would strongly object to.  24/7 coverage of breaking news and live events A federal judge on Friday issued an injunction blocking the Trump administration from establishing its $1.8 billion \"Anti-Weaponization Fund\" after expressing concerns that senior officials have not put in their commitment to not move forward with the fund in writing. U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema repeatedly cited acting Attorney General Todd Blanche's refusal to commit to not moving forward with the fund under penalty of perjury, as well as President Donald Trump's own words suggesting he was disappointed that the government might not establish the fund so that those charged in connection with the Jan. 6 Capitol attack could be compensated. \"If it was up to me, I'd pay them the kind of money that they deserve. People have been destroyed. Lives have been destroyed,\" Trump said during an interview with NBC's Meet the Press that aired over the weekend. The fund, which was announced last month by the DOJ to compensate those who allege they were wrongly targeted under the Biden administration, was proposed in exchange for Trump agreeing to drop his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS as well as two civil claims for $230 million related to the Russia collusion investigation he faced during his first term in office and the 2022 search of his Mar-a-Lago estate -- sparking accusations of self-dealing and a bipartisan uproar over the possible use of taxpayer money to pay rioters who attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Lawyers with the Department of Justice have argued that the case is now moot, writing in a court filing last week that they would not move forward with the fund. During Friday's hearing, Judge Brinkema repeatedly pressed DOJ attorney Andrew Block on whether he knew why Blanche hasn't simply rescinded his previous order establishing the fund.  \"Your honor, I don't,\" Block responded, saying he doesn't have the ability to speak for Blanche.  Brinkema said she \"couldn't believe,\" given the significance of the case, that Block wouldn't have even attempted to get an answer, and said the government's unwillingness on that score created a \"huge gap in the record\" of the case.  Brinkema said she didn't believe there was any injury to the government if there was an injunction in place, and gave them one week to respond with a formal declaration, under penalty of perjury, stating no \"Anti-Weaponization Fund\" would be established -- which she said would potentially clear the way to dismissing the case.  Judge Brinkema pointed repeatedly to President Trump's own shifting statements in recent weeks about the fund, including his pointed attack on Brinkema herself after she had temporarily paused the fund earlier this month, in which he referred to her as a \"radical left judge.\" \"When the president of the United States says he's disappointed that something is not going forward,\" Brinkema said, that would only add to the evidence that the fund might \"rear its head\" in the future.  Brinkema said at one point during the proceedings that just this week an unidentified individual had send an application for money from the fund directly to the court.  \"We had to send it back,\" Brinkema said.  Later in the hearing, Brinkema expressed doubt about the legality of Trump's settlement that established the fund, noting a judge's order in Florida that recently asked Trump's lawyers to respond to claims they may have committed a fraud on her court.  \"You think this is lawful business?\" Brinkema asked Block.  At one point, Brinkema read into the record an amicus brief submitted in the lawsuit by Sen. Cory Booker and Sen. Bill Cassidy that urged her to permanently block the fund over the potential it could compensate individuals who attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.  Brinkema said the brief showed that public interest in preventing the establishment of such a fund \"is very strong,\" and questioned the concept of nearly $1.8 billion being directed to such a small subset of individuals that a significant number of Americans would strongly object to.