A coalition of President Donald Trump’s critics asked a federal court on Friday to block the newly created $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” a government settlement pool designed to compensate Trump allies who say they were victimized by a politicized justice system. The lawsuit, filed by the legal advocacy group Democracy Forward in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia, seeks a court order halting the fund’s implementation and preventing any disbursements.
The plaintiffs include Andrew Floyd, a former assistant U.S. attorney who was fired in 2023 after a career prosecuting drug and firearms cases, and a University of California professor who was acquitted after being charged with assaulting federal agents during a 2023 protest. Both individuals, according to the suit, exemplify how the Trump administration’s apparatus for cataloguing “government weaponization” has been deployed against its critics.
The “Anti-Weaponization Fund” was established to settle a lawsuit that Trump filed against the Internal Revenue Service after the leak of his tax returns. The creation of the fund, which carries a figure matching the year of American independence, was announced by then-U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Ed Martin, who has since stepped down. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has defended the arrangement. The lawsuit names Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, the IRS, Attorney General Pam Bondi, and the Department of Justice as defendants.
Democracy Forward’s lawyers argue in the complaint that the fund constitutes an unconstitutional delegation of government power because it provides the Trump administration with essentially unrestricted authority to make payments. “There is no legal basis for this fund, and there is no accountability for how the executive branch spends this money,” the complaint states, according to the Associated Press.
The administration’s stated purpose for the fund is to resolve claims from individuals who assert they were targets of “politically motivated” investigations and prosecutions during the Biden administration. Administration officials have pointed to the prosecution of anti-abortion activists under the FACE Act and the treatment of January 6 defendants as examples of the alleged weaponization.
The fund’s breadth has drawn the most intense scrutiny. MSI has previously reported that Acting AG Blanche declined to rule out payouts for participants in the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot who were convicted of violent crimes during a Senate hearing. Following that testimony, a coalition of U.S. Capitol Police officers filed their own lawsuit to prevent convicted rioters from receiving compensation from the fund.
In Friday’s suit, the plaintiffs’ lawyers underscored the lack of transparency. Floyd departed the U.S. Attorney’s office in 2023 after what he asserts was a merit-based career, yet he was reportedly required to seek training on political prosecutions—a demand he considered an unfounded claim that he had weaponized his office. The California professor, according to the lawsuit, was indicted on assault charges for actions during a campus protest, a case the suit characterizes as a politically driven prosecution. The professor was acquitted by a jury.
The lawsuit represents the second major legal challenge to the fund in as many days, following the officers’ suit. Together, they frame a core constitutional dispute over whether the executive branch can create and disburse a nearly $2 billion settlement pool with minimal oversight, using funds the administration characterizes as compensation for individuals it has unilaterally declared victims of the prior administration.
Democracy Forward is requesting a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to freeze the fund while the court considers the case’s merits. A hearing date has not yet been set.