Judge Denies TRO on 'Anti-Weaponization' Fund but Warns Against 'Playing Possum'

A federal judge in Washington, D.C. denied a quick procedural halt to the Trump administration's 'anti-weaponization' fund on June 10, 2026, but kept the constitutional challenge alive for a fuller hearing. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) had sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) to stop the fund, which was created via a DOJ settlement of Trump v. IRS (a lawsuit Trump filed as a private citizen) and funded through an unprecedented use of the Judgment Fund without congressional appropriation. Judge Leon's denial was based on the government's representation that the fund is not currently being disbursed, but he openly warned the administration against 'playing possum'—abandoning the fund temporarily to moot the case and then reviving it later. The watchdog's motion for a preliminary injunction remains pending, meaning the court will still assess whether the fund violates the Appropriations Clause or other statutes.

Meanwhile, in a separate lawsuit in the Eastern District of Virginia, Judge Leonie Brinkema already granted a temporary block on fund payouts on May 29, 2026, after a fired Jan. 6 prosecutor and a college student sued (see Democracy Forward lawsuit). The two cases now move on parallel tracks: Brinkema's order directly prevents disbursements, while Leon's case requires further litigation for permanent relief. The administration's pattern—creating a settlement fund without congressional appropriation, then claiming it is defunct to avoid review—exemplifies the kind of executive overreach that undermines constitutional checks. Congress has not authorized this use of the Judgment Fund, and the settlement resolved a personal lawsuit of the former president, not a federal program. Legal experts have called the fund 'unprecedented' and a lawless diversion of taxpayer money. The key safeguard at stake is the Appropriations Clause (Article I, Section 9), which gives Congress—not the president—sole power over federal spending. The fund also bypasses the Antideficiency Act and standard DOJ settlement procedures. A democratically accountable alternative would be to require any such compensation fund to be explicitly authorized by Congress, with transparent criteria and independent oversight.