Trump DOJ thrashes court's demand to officially declare that 'slush fund' is dead
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche leads a news conference to announce results of their investigation into potential antitrust violations in the meat-packing industry at the Justice Department in Washington, D.C., on May 4, 2026. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

President Donald Trump's Department of Justice thrashed a federal judge in a new court filing for demanding that DOJ officials and two Trump cabinet secretaries officially declare that Trump's "anti-weaponization" slush fund is officially dead.

Last month, the Trump administration announced plans to create a $1.776 billion fund to pay claims from people who allege they were wrongfully prosecuted by the federal government. Several of Trump's allies, including formerly convicted members of the Proud Boys, declared that they would seek restitution from the fund, which sparked significant bipartisan pushback.

Political analysts and experts have described the fund as a "slush fund" because the Trump DOJ would have full control over who is eligible for payments, and the legal paperwork establishing the fund states that the federal government bears no responsibility if crimes are committed by people who receive payments.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told the House and Senate judiciary committees that the administration is no longer pursuing the fund, but has refused to put that in writing.

On Friday, the Trump DOJ told a judge in the Eastern District of Virginia that it won't abide by a demand to declare the fund dead. The DOJ argued in the filing that multiple Trump administration officials have said the fund is not moving forward, and those past statements should satisfy the court's demand. It also attached a copy of Blanche's testimony to Congress as evidence of its claims.

"Such declarations are unnecessary, and the compelled testimony of senior officials from the Executive Branch implicates serious separation of powers concerns," the DOJ wrote in its filing.

"Nor is there any basis for the court to compel testimony from the Associate Attorney General and two Cabinet members. The point of Article III limitations on judicial review is to prevent such overreach," it added.