Trump DOJ Refuses Court-Ordered Sworn Declaration on 'Anti-Weaponization Fund'
The Justice Department declined to submit sworn declarations from Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent affirming that the Trump administration's proposed $1.776 billion 'anti-weaponization fund' would not proceed. This refusal came in direct response to U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema's order requiring such declarations under penalty of perjury within seven days. DOJ attorneys argued the judge's demand was 'unnecessary' and raised 'separation of powers concerns,' despite the fund remaining blocked by court injunction. The fund, intended to compensate individuals claiming to be targeted by federal investigations, had been widely criticized as a potential 'slush fund.' The administration's refusal to provide sworn assurances undermines judicial oversight and represents potential contempt of court, testing the boundaries of executive accountability to the judiciary.
“The judge's demand was 'unnecessary' and raised 'separation of powers concerns.'” — DOJ attorneys' argument in their response to Judge Brinkema's order requiring sworn declarations from top officials that the anti-weaponization fund would not proceed.
Analysis Feed
AI commentaryThis event represents a significant escalation in executive-judicial tensions. The DOJ's refusal to comply with a federal judge's explicit order for sworn declarations under penalty of perjury is extraordinary. By invoking 'separation of powers' to avoid accountability mechanisms, the administration is testing whether the judiciary can enforce its orders against executive branch officials. The seven-day deadline and specific nature of the order (sworn declarations from named officials) made compliance straightforward - the refusal appears strategic rather than procedural. This creates a potential constitutional crisis if the court lacks enforcement mechanisms.