Judge blocks payments to Trump's 'anti-weaponization' fund | KTVU

Hinzugefügt: 2026-05-31

[00:00:01]A major setback for the president's new anti-weaponization fund. Fox's Jared Halpern with the order issued today by a federal judge.

[00:00:10]>> The controversy over President Trump's $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund is heating up. A temporary order from a federal judge in Virginia on Friday, blocked any payments from the fund, which was set up by the Justice Department to pay out settlements to individuals accusing the Biden administration of targeting them for political purposes. The White House is defending the deal, which is part of a separate settlement ending President Trump's lawsuit against the IRS.

[00:00:38]President Trump is a great American who has endured more than 10 years 10 years of non-stop harassment and weaponization from the federal and state government actors. But critics in Congress, including a growing number of Republicans, have questioned the legality and oversight of the fund, saying any amount that large needs to be appropriated by lawmakers and the money should not be paid to violent criminals.

[00:01:03]says a lot of us are left in the dark about exactly what this uh fund will be used for.

[00:01:08]>> I do not think one penny of any fund should ever go to any January 6th insurrectionist.

[00:01:15]>> And Democrats are now indicating they'll make it a big issue in the upcoming midterm elections, claiming it shows the president is out of touch with the affordability crisis.

[00:01:25]>> You can create a slush fund for January 6 riders with the money. Uh, would you rather see that here back in the pockets where it used to be and should be? Yes, I sure would.

[00:01:35]>> The judge has set a June 12th hearing to determine whether or not to continue blocking those payments at the White House. Jared Halpern, Fox News.

[00:01:45]>> And joining me now live this afternoon to talk about today's decision is Jessica Levenson, Loyola Law School professor. Professor, always a pleasure to see you. So, why did the judge here temporarily block this fund?

[00:01:57]So this is just an initial decision not based on the merits of the case. And essentially what the judge says is we're pushing pause to make sure that money isn't dispersed that's almost impossible to get back. So yes, this is an initial setback for the Trump administration, but I think this could be very temporary. It's just to maintain the status quo. It's just to make sure that you don't turn on the spot and start handing out funds to people where it would be very difficult to get back.

[00:02:29]It's really just an acknowledgement of the fact that if there are legal issues, it's better to sort out those issues before you start paying claims.

[00:02:37]>> Right. As you mentioned, only temporary.

[00:02:39]So, what exactly happens between now and that June 12th hearing? And what will the judge be looking at next?

[00:02:46]>> So, the judge is going to be looking at more of the substance of the claims.

[00:02:50]What happens between now and June 12th, I think, is that each side will file motions and will make an argument to the judge, don't pause the dispersement of funds while we hear this case, and then the other side will say, absolutely, pause the dispersement of funds while we hear this case. In terms of the specific arguments here, I mean, they're essentially boil down to the idea that the Department of Justice just did not have the authority to create this anti-weaponization fund. Now, we should acknowledge that Congress has appropriated a judgment fund for the Department of Justice. And that, in fact, I think makes all the sense in the world. You don't want a situation where every time somebody is, you know, run over by a their foot is run over by a postal truck that you have to have the Department of Justice in settling the case say to Congress, "We need an appropriation of $5,000 or $10,000." So there is a fund in place, but I think there's a real question about whether that fund can be used in this situation where you don't have a defined class of claimants. You don't have a defined injury and you don't have defined criteria for how the money would be doowled out. So this looks very different from other situations where other administrations have tried to tap into this fund.

[00:04:10]>> Okay. So I want to I want to talk for a moment about the arguments made by those who really oppose the fund. So, the president of Democracy Forward reacted today to the judge's decision and and that group actually or that agency heads the group that filed the suit said the judge's order recognized the urgent need to prevent taxpayer dollars from being distributed through a secretive and unprecedented political compensation scheme. I mean, legally speaking, what are their strongest arguments against it? And is it in fact unprecedented?

[00:04:40]So I think it's unprecedented to the extent of what we just talked about which is you haven't seen a fund set up this way based on this type of suit. So we should of course remember how did this all start? Uh, President Trump in his individual capacity sued the Internal Revenue Service and then as part of the settlement, the Department of Justice agreed to set up this fund, but not to pay President Trump even either in his personal or private capacity instead to pay people who have been the alleged subjects of the weaponization of the Department of Justice. So what we see here is a a very different setup than you would typically see where you have the Department of Justice create a fund and where people can ask for money to be dispersed to them. We're not sure exactly who would be asking for payments. We're not sure exactly based on what criteria you would ask and what criteria it would be granted. And I think those are some of the strongest arguments that it's so undefined and so amorphous and so without a political excuse me a historic analog that essentially the Department of Justice has gone beyond its authority even though Congress did create this judgment fund.

[00:06:00]>> Okay. But if the approach maybe is different, does that actually mean it's illegal?

[00:06:06]>> Well, I mean that's the big question here. And of course it's not just I think different. It's different without the same sorts of uh restrictions and guidelines that we typically have in place. But does that mean it's absolutely uh illegal? I mean, I think that's what all of these cases will look to. We should note that before the judges get to the big issue, the judges will consider in all of these cases whether the right person is actually walking into federal court and bringing the court. All of these plaintiffs need to show that they have standing to sue, that they have a true injury, and that it can be redressed by a favorable uh verdict by a jury or a judge.

[00:06:50]>> All right, we will wait and see what happens between now and as I mentioned that June 12th hearing. Just want to note though, the Justice Department also reacting to this decision today, saying the department remains extremely confident in the legality of the anti-weaponization fund, which is supported by ample precedent, including Obama era settlements. Again, that is their take on what happened today.

[00:07:11]Really appreciate it, Jessica. Thanks again for joining us on the show.

[00:07:14]>> Thank you. Mhm. All right. The