Judge Orders DOJ: Disclose Names Behind $1.8 Billion Anti-Weaponization Fund

A federal magistrate judge has ordered the Trump administration to disclose the identities of people who helped devise a proposed $1.8 billion fund intended to compensate people who said they had been wrongfully targeted by the federal government.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Ivan D. Davis issued the order Friday in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, as part of a lawsuit challenging the legality of the fund and a separate provision of a Justice Department agreement that provided broad protections for President Donald Trump, his family, and his businesses from certain past tax investigations.

The ruling could shed more light on how the fund was developed and who participated in the negotiations that produced it.

The fund, formally called the Anti-Weaponization Fund, was announced by the Justice Department in May as part of an agreement resolving a lawsuit Trump had filed against the Internal Revenue Service over the disclosure of some of his tax returns to news organizations.

The Justice Department defended the fund when it was announced, saying it would create a lawful process for people who believed they had been victims of government "weaponization" to seek redress.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said at the time that the government should not be used against Americans for political purposes and described the fund as a way to address what he characterized as past abuses.

The Justice Department also said the fund had legal precedent, pointing specifically to a previous federal settlement stemming from Keepseagle v. Vilsack, in which the government established a fund to compensate Native American farmers who alleged discrimination in federal programs.

The department said the new fund would operate under similar principles.

The proposed fund quickly came under criticism, including from Republican senators who raised concerns about the use of taxpayer money and the possibility that people prosecuted in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol could receive compensation.

Blanche initially said he could not categorically rule out payments to people involved in Jan. 6, although he later said the department would not move forward with the fund.

In August, Blanche formally rescinded the order establishing the fund after Republican Sens. Thom Tillis of North Carolina and John Cornyn of Texas made ending it a condition of their support for his confirmation as attorney general.

Blanche said the fund had never actually begun operating and that no money had been transferred into a separate account.

Trump subsequently said he supported compensating people he believed had been unfairly treated by the government and at one point suggested the fund could be revived.

The fund was ultimately rescinded, but the litigation challenging its creation has continued.

The lawsuit was filed by a group of plaintiffs that includes Andrew Floyd, a former federal prosecutor who was fired by the Trump administration after working on Jan. 6-related cases.

The plaintiffs argue that the fund was structured to benefit Trump's political allies and have sought information about who conceived and developed it.

The union representing IRS employees later joined the lawsuit, challenging provisions of the separate tax agreement involving Trump, his family, and his businesses.

The plaintiffs have also challenged the circumstances under which Trump's lawsuit against the IRS was dismissed.

Trump had sought damages from the IRS over the disclosure of some of his tax returns. The proposed resolution included the $1.8 billion compensation fund as well as provisions providing broad protections involving past tax investigations.

A federal judge in Florida later questioned the circumstances surrounding the dismissal of Trump's lawsuit and the related agreement.

The Justice Department has argued that the fund was never implemented and that Blanche's decision to rescind it made challenges to the fund largely moot.

In court filings, the department also opposed broader discovery sought by the plaintiffs, arguing that the case involves review of an administrative record and that extensive additional discovery was not warranted.

Judge Davis nevertheless ordered the government to provide information concerning people and documents relevant to claims that are not limited to the administrative record.

Friday's ruling specifically requires the administration to identify people involved in the conception of the fund, potentially giving the plaintiffs additional information about how the proposal was developed.

The plaintiffs' attorneys welcomed the ruling.

"Today's order granting discovery is a significant step in getting to the bottom of the slush fund," said Aman George, a lawyer with Democracy Forward, which filed the lawsuit.

The characterization of the fund as a "slush fund" comes from the plaintiffs and their allies and is not the terminology used by the Justice Department, which described the proposal as a lawful process for compensating alleged victims of government weaponization.

The Justice Department did not immediately comment on Friday's ruling.

© 2026 Newsmax. All rights reserved.