Poli Alert Politics & Civics
Related Articles
A federal magistrate judge has ordered the Trump administration to identify the officials who conceived the structure of its now-defunct $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” rejecting repeated Justice Department efforts to keep the names from plaintiffs challenging the program in court.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Ivan D. Davis issued the ruling Friday in an ongoing lawsuit in federal court in Alexandria. The case was brought by former federal prosecutor Andrew Floyd and other plaintiffs, represented by Democracy Forward, who argue that the fund was an unconstitutional use of taxpayer money that could benefit people who claim they were unfairly targeted by the government.
Davis said the identities of those who developed the fund’s structure are relevant to the plaintiffs’ discovery requests.
“Who came up with it? That’s what conception means,” Davis said, according to the Washington Post.
The ruling does not mean the names will immediately become public. Davis instructed the parties to treat the information exchanged during discovery as though a protective order were already in place, meaning the material would generally remain confidential unless the case proceeds to trial or the court otherwise permits its release.
DOJ appeals disclosure order
The Justice Department is appealing Davis’ ruling to U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema, who is overseeing the broader case.
The department has also asked Brinkema to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing and that the fund is no longer moving forward. Brinkema has not yet ruled on that request.
The administration announced in June that it was abandoning the fund following bipartisan criticism and multiple lawsuits. Justice Department lawyers subsequently told courts in writing that the proposed fund was “not going forward.”
President Donald Trump later described the fund as “dead,” although he continued to defend the idea and said he believed people who were victims of alleged government abuse should receive compensation. That public history has contributed to continued litigation over whether the administration could revive the program.
Who was involved?
The Justice Department has identified five administration officials who were involved in the effort: Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, IRS chief executive Frank Bisignano and acting Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys say that list may not include everyone who helped develop the fund.
Aman George, an attorney with Democracy Forward, argued that knowing who conceived the program is necessary to determine whose records should be requested and which officials should potentially be questioned under oath.
Justice Department attorney Andrew Block argued that the identities were irrelevant and suggested that communications surrounding the fund could involve attorney-client privilege or protections for internal government deliberations. The department, however, has not formally invoked those privileges in court, according to the Washington Post.
Court expands discovery
Davis also ordered the Justice Department to provide plaintiffs with relevant evidence dating from January 2025 through Sept. 4, when the ruling was issued.
The department had sought a narrower period beginning in May 2026, shortly before the lawsuit was filed. Davis rejected that request, and the Justice Department is appealing that portion of the ruling as well.
The discovery order could give plaintiffs a broader look at the fund’s development, including communications and records predating the administration’s formal creation of the program.
The $1.776 billion fund was created in May as part of an agreement resolving Trump’s lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the disclosure of his tax records. Under the proposal, the money would have been used to compensate people who claimed they were victims of government “weaponization.”
The proposal quickly drew bipartisan criticism, including concerns about whether the executive branch had authority to establish the program and whether the fund could benefit Trump’s political allies.
A federal judge previously blocked the fund from operating, and the court later kept the program frozen indefinitely while litigation continued. No money was ultimately distributed through the fund.
Lawsuit continues despite fund’s cancellation
The administration’s decision to abandon the fund has not ended the legal fight.
The plaintiffs maintain that the circumstances surrounding the fund’s creation remain relevant to their claims and that the government should be required to provide evidence necessary to resolve the case.
The Justice Department, meanwhile, argues that because the program has been canceled and no payments were made, the plaintiffs no longer have a live controversy that can be resolved by the court.
Brinkema will ultimately decide whether the lawsuit can proceed and whether Davis’ discovery orders stand.
For now, the judge’s ruling requires the administration to identify the people who helped devise the fund while the broader legal battle over its creation continues.
