The U.S. Department of Justice stated that there was no need for a written commitment to abandon a $1.8 billion "deweaponization" fund, as senior government officials had previously made it clear to Congress that the plan would not continue.

The judge requested the submission of an sworn statement.

Virginia federal judge Leonie Brinkema had previously ordered acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to submit written sworn statements within a week confirming that the fund would not proceed. She stated that without such formal documentation, the court would not grant the dismissal of a lawsuit seeking a permanent halt to the fund.

Brinkema extended the injunction against the fund last week. She believes that previous verbal statements by Justice Department leadership in court and Congress have been insufficient to resolve the controversy.

The Department of Justice stated that a written commitment was unnecessary.

The Justice Department said in a filing on Friday that the judge’s request was “unnecessary” and that it raised “serious questions about the separation of powers.”

In the filing, Justice Department lawyer Andrew Block wrote that the acting Attorney General had testified in Parliament that the fund "would not proceed," and that government lawyers had reiterated the same position twice in court documents and made similar statements in public hearings.

Trump's remarks exacerbate court concerns

The fund, initially proposed by the Justice Department in May, was part of a settlement reached after Trump sued the IRS over leaked tax records. The $1.8 billion fund was originally intended to compensate alleged victims of excessive prosecution during the Biden administration.

But critics worry the funds could be used to pay compensation to Trump's allies, including defendants or those who pleaded guilty in connection with the January 6, 2021, Capitol Hill riots.

One reason the court continued to press for answers was that after Blanche testified before Congress, Trump subsequently expressed his desire to continue advancing the fund. This inconsistency in his statements became a key reason for the judge to require the government to submit an affidavit.