A federal judge in Virginia has extended an order blocking the Trump administration's nearly $1.8bn slush fund, stating that the administration's public declarations that the fund was terminated were not sufficiently reassuring.
Background of the Fund
The fund, which caused immediate bipartisan outrage when it was announced last month, was part of a settlement between the IRS and Donald Trump over the leak of his tax returns. The Trump administration created the fund to resolve his lawsuit against the IRS.
Amid mounting pressure, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche stated during a congressional hearing last week that the fund was not moving forward. However, Blanche refused to put that promise in writing, and Trump has since made public statements equivocating on whether the fund was truly dead.
Court's Decision
US District Judge Leonie Brinkema, an appointee of Bill Clinton, said she would lift her order if Blanche and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent filed a declaration under penalty of perjury that the fund was not moving forward within the next week. A separate part of the agreement that grants Trump, his family, and related entities immunity from IRS audits remains in place.
Brinkema had earlier issued an order blocking the fund while litigation against it was pending, which was set to expire on Friday.
Reactions
Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, which represented the plaintiffs in the suit, said: "This ruling is a significant victory for the constitution, the rule of law and people in America. The court recognized the serious legal concerns raised by the Trump-Vance administration's attempt to create a secretive, taxpayer-funded compensation program operating outside the constitutional safeguards that govern public spending. Despite the administration's shifting explanations about the future of the slush fund, the court's order ensures that taxpayer dollars cannot be distributed through this unlawful scheme while the courts fully consider the serious constitutional issues at stake. We look forward to continuing this challenge on behalf of our clients."
The plaintiffs in the case include a former federal prosecutor who worked on January 6 cases, a California professor acquitted of attacking immigration agents, the Connecticut city of New Haven, the watchdog group Common Cause, and the National Abortion Federation.
