A controversial fund created by the Donald Trump administration to compensate alleged victims of political “weaponization” has been temporarily frozen by a federal judge, adding another legal battle to an already divisive initiative.
The so-called “Anti-Weaponization Fund” was introduced earlier this month as part of a settlement tied to Trump’s lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) over the leak of his tax records. The administration planned to place nearly $1.8 billion into the fund, which would then be used to pay individuals who claim they were unfairly targeted by government agencies or politically motivated investigations.
Supporters of the program argue it is meant to help people harmed by what Trump and his allies frequently describe as “lawfare” — a term used to accuse federal institutions of using investigations and prosecutions for political purposes.
Critics, however, say the proposal lacks transparency and could effectively become a taxpayer-funded reward system for Trump allies and January 6 defendants. Some opponents have even labelled it a potential “slush fund,” pointing to the broad eligibility criteria and limited public oversight surrounding how the money would be distributed.
Under the original plan, the fund would have been overseen by a five-member commission largely appointed by the attorney general. Applicants claiming they had been victims of government abuse or politically driven investigations could submit cases for compensation.
But on Thursday, US District Judge Leonie Brinkema temporarily halted the administration from moving forward with the program while the court reviews legal challenges against it. Her order blocks the government from transferring money into the fund, reviewing claims or distributing payments for now.
The lawsuit challenging the initiative was filed by Democracy Forward, a legal advocacy group representing several plaintiffs who argue the fund is unlawful and politically selective. Among them are former federal officials and individuals who claim they themselves were targeted by the Trump administration yet would not qualify for compensation under the new program.
Judge Brinkema said the temporary freeze was necessary to preserve the “status quo” until further hearings can determine whether the fund itself violates federal law.
The case has quickly evolved into a broader debate over the limits of presidential power, the use of taxpayer money and the increasingly politicised battle over who gets labelled a victim of government “weaponization” in modern American politics.
A hearing on the matter is expected next month as legal scrutiny around the fund continues to intensify.