A federal judge in Virginia allowed a lawsuit challenging a proposed $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund to move forward, rejecting the Department of Justice's argument that the case is moot.

On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, a Clinton appointee, refused to dismiss the lawsuit challenging the fund, which was part of a settlement of President Donald Trump's personal $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS.

The fund was intended to compensate people the administration says were victims of government weaponization under the Biden administration.

Brinkema ruled the government's assurances that the fund is "not going forward" were insufficient to render the case moot.

The government contended its public statements, including Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche's congressional testimony that the fund is "not going forward, period," were sufficient.

Brinkema disagreed, noting the government refused to back those statements with sworn declarations. She said Blanche's refusal to rescind his May 18 memo that set up the structure of the fund, as well as Blanche's and Trump's continued interest in compensating purported victims of government weaponization, "all support this conclusion" that the lawsuit is not moot.

Instead, she ordered the case to proceed to discovery and directed the DOJ to file its answer or other responsive pleading by July 17.

"On the record before this Court, the President and Acting Attorney General Blanche's continued interest in compensating alleged victims of alleged government weaponization, the defendants' unwillingness to provide declarations under the penalty of perjury, and Acting Attorney General Blanche's refusal to rescind the May 18, 2026 memo, which set up the structure of the Fund, all support the conclusion that this civil action is not moot," Brinkema wrote in a four-page order.

In a filing June 19, the DOJ argued the declarations were unnecessary, noting Blanche's congressional testimony and that government attorneys have made the same representation in court filings and hearings.

"All these statements were made against the backdrop of serious penalties for falsity," the DOJ wrote. "So, there is no reason why declarations should affect the Court's mootness analysis."

The DOJ also objected to Brinkema's demand that three senior executive branch officials personally submit sworn statements.

The filing argued that "the compelled testimony of senior officials from the Executive Branch implicates serious separation of powers concerns" and said there is "no basis for the court to compel testimony from the Associate Attorney General and two Cabinet members."

But Brinkema wrote: "That the defendants have refused to accord a genuine degree of trustworthiness to their representations about the Fund not going forward is particularly concerning because of the President's consistent support for the Fund and Acting Attorney General Blanche's acknowledgement that the Fund remains 'important.'"

"Although Acting Attorney General Blanche reiterated several times during his testimony that the Fund was not going forward, when asked whether he would 'issue a new memo in writing rescinding that May 18 memo,' he replied, 'I'm not committing to putting anything in writing. And I said it over and over again,'" Brinkema wrote.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit include Andrew Floyd, a former federal prosecutor who has said he was fired for prosecuting cases against those who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

The other plaintiffs are Jonathan Caravello, a professor at California State University Channel Islands, and the city of New Haven, Connecticut.