US judge halts Trump's $1.8bn 'anti-weaponisation' fund

A federal judge has temporarily halted the creation of a $1.8 billion government fund aimed at compensating individuals who claimed they were targets of political investigation by previous presidential administrations. The court order comes as President Donald Trump's ongoing $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) over leaked tax returns remain unresolved.

The proposed fund, part of an agreement between the president and the IRS to end his lawsuit, would have allowed those claiming compensation to file their claims with the government before a preliminary hearing was set for June 12. However, Judge Leonie Brinkema has blocked any steps taken by the government to operate or process these claims.

Many Trump supporters who were prosecuted over the US Capitol riot in January have expressed plans to seek compensation under this fund, citing concerns that it may not be subject to explicit congressional approval and would lack oversight. Critics, including Republicans like John Thune, have raised questions about how individuals' claims will be processed.

The creation of the fund has been met with opposition from some lawmakers who are concerned about its lack of explicit congressional authorization and limited oversight. The justice department has maintained that it is "extremely confident" in the legality of the anti-weaponisation fund, despite allegations of bias against victims of lawfare.

A group of 35 former federal judges has also expressed concerns about the terms of the deal, asking the judge overseeing Trump's tax lawsuit to review the terms more thoroughly. Meanwhile, a US government memo seen by Reuters suggests that options are being explored for punishing Nato allies who failed to provide support during the Iran war.

Despite these developments, the fund remains on hold pending further judicial review and Congressional action. The implications of this delay for those seeking compensation under the proposed fund are still unclear, but it highlights the ongoing tension between congressional oversight and executive branch authority in matters of lawfare and government accountability.