DistantNews
Support us
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ United States /Crime & Justice

DOJ rebuffs judge's demand for sworn statement on defunct 'anti-weaponization' fund

From CBS News · () English

Translated from English, summarized and contextualized by DistantNews.

At a glance

News Named sources In the courts
  • The Justice Department declined a judge's request for a sworn declaration confirming a controversial $1.8 billion "anti-weaponization" fund is defunct.
  • U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema demanded the declaration under penalty of perjury to prevent future litigation.
  • The DOJ argued the filing is "unnecessary" and raises "separation of powers concerns," citing previous statements that the fund is not proceeding.

The Trump administration has refused to submit a sworn declaration from top officials confirming that a controversial $1.8 billion "anti-weaponization" fund will not proceed, calling the demand "unnecessary." The Justice Department informed the federal district court in Alexandria, Virginia, that Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent would not provide the requested filing.

unnecessary

โ€” Justice Department lawyersDescribing the judge's demand for a sworn declaration about the 'anti-weaponization' fund.

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema had requested the declaration under penalty of perjury last week. She aimed to ensure that the "anti-weaponization" program would not be pursued "in any manner, or under any name" to "avoid any further litigation." The judge also issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Justice Department from creating or operating the program, which remains in effect.

to avoid any further litigation

โ€” U.S. District Judge Leonie BrinkemaExplaining the reason for demanding a sworn declaration about the fund's status.

Senior Justice Department lawyers, including Andrew Block, senior counsel to Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, argued that the declaration is "unnecessary" and that compelling testimony from senior Executive Branch officials implicates "serious separation of powers concerns." Block noted that Blanche had previously testified to Congress that the fund is "not going forward, period," and that similar assertions have been made in court filings.

implicates serious separation of powers concerns

โ€” Andrew BlockJustice Department lawyer arguing against the judge's demand for a sworn declaration.

However, the judge pointed out that none of these previous statements were made under penalty of perjury. The lawsuit against the administration was brought by a coalition including two nonprofits and a former federal prosecutor. Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, representing the plaintiffs, criticized the administration's refusal, stating, "It is telling that even after the federal court gave them a week, the Acting Attorney General and other senior administration officials continue to refuse to say under oath that the Slush Fund is dead and won't operate in the future."

not going forward, period

โ€” Todd BlancheActing Attorney General's previous statement regarding the fund's status.
DistantNews Editorial

Originally published by CBS News in English. Translated, summarized, and contextualized by our editorial team with added local perspective. Read our editorial standards.