A dispute has emerged between the U.S.Department of Justice (DOJ) and a federal judge over the future of a proposed $1.776 billion anti-weaponization fund.According to the report, U.S.

District Judge Leonie Brinkema previously issued an order indefinitely blocking the fund and directed the DOJ to submit a declaration under penalty of perjury confirming that the initiative would not move forward.

The judge reportedly requested signatures from Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, who were described as key officials involved in establishing the fund.Instead of providing the requested declaration, DOJ attorney Andrew Block filed a different document on June 19.

In that filing, the department argued that such a declaration was unnecessary and raised concerns that requiring testimony or sworn statements from senior executive branch officials could create separation-of-powers issues.

The filing also pointed to previous congressional testimony by Acting Attorney General Blanche, who stated that the fund was 'not going forward, period.

' Legal commentator Michael Popok criticized the DOJ's response, arguing that it failed to comply with the judge's explicit instructions.He contended that statements made outside the courtroom are not a substitute for evidence or sworn testimony in judicial proceedings.The disagreement centers on whether the DOJ's public assurances are sufficient or whether a formal court declaration is required.

The case highlights ongoing tensions between the executive branch and the judiciary regarding accountability, evidentiary standards, and judicial oversight of government actions.