The Department of Justice is refusing to file court-ordered declarations stating it will not proceed with a proposed $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund that grew out of a settlement of President Donald Trump's personal lawsuit against the IRS.

On June 12, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, a Clinton appointee, extended her block on the fund, which was intended to compensate victims of alleged prosecutorial overreach during the Biden administration.

She ordered Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward Jr. and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to file sworn declarations by Friday, stating that the fund would not move forward in any form.

The order stated that if the declarations were not filed, the court would issue a scheduling order and require the government to respond to the lawsuit by July 17.

In a filing Friday, the DOJ argued the declarations were unnecessary, noting that Blanche testified before Congress that the fund is "not going forward, period" 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."

The filing suggests the dispute has evolved beyond the fate of the Anti-Weaponization Fund itself. Although the DOJ has repeatedly said the fund will not move forward, it argues that Brinkema cannot require Cabinet-level officials to personally submit sworn declarations as a condition for ending the case.

The DOJ contends that such a requirement raises separation-of-powers concerns by inserting the judiciary into executive branch decision-making and settlement authority.

Brinkema's order, however, suggests she was unwilling to rely solely on those assurances. In extending the injunction, she required sworn statements that the fund would not proceed "in any manner, or under any name."

The order also bars the government from creating or operating the fund, transferring money to it, processing claims, making payments, appointing anyone to manage it, establishing rules for it, destroying related documents or reconstituting the fund under another name.

The DOJ filing said another federal judge in a related case had credited the government's representations that the fund was not moving forward and denied emergency relief.

"The Court should dismiss this case as moot and for lack of standing and ripeness," the DOJ wrote.

In a post Friday on X, the DOJ again pointed to previous court filings and Blanche's congressional testimony stating that the fund would not proceed.

"In essence, the judge's demand for declarations was an attempt to require her to personally sign-off on any and all future settlements, separate from this non-existent Fund, that the department may make," the DOJ wrote. "Judges do not get to insert themselves into the department's routine settlement authority."