Politics

Judge temporarily blocks payouts from Trump’s $1.8B ‘anti-weaponization’ fund

Published

3 months ago

May 30, 2026

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge on Friday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from proceeding with a new $1.776 billion settlement fund for the Republican president’s allies who believe they were victims of a weaponized government, halting its formation or any potential payouts for at least the next two weeks.

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Alexandria, Virginia, scheduled a June 12 hearing for arguments on whether to extend her order barring the government from moving forward with its “Anti-Weaponization Fund” while pending litigation challenges it. The administration created the fund to resolve President Donald Trump’s lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns.

A Justice Department spokesperson said it’s “extremely confident” that the fund is legally supported “by ample precedent,” including from settlements during the administration of President Barack Obama, a Democrat. “We will not allow the policy preferences of judges to interfere with our efforts to provide restitution to victims of lawfare,” the spokesperson said in a statement.

President Donald Trump speaks during a Cabinet meeting at the White House, Wednesday, May 27, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

The White House declined to comment on the judge’s ruling, referring questions to the Justice Department.

The judge, who was nominated to the bench by President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, gave the government another week to respond in writing to the plaintiffs’ arguments in favor of freezing the fund’s creation and operation, including any payments in or out of it.

AP AUDIO: Judge temporarily blocks payouts from Trump’s $1.776 billion ‘anti-weaponization’ settlement fund

AP Washington correspondent Sagar Meghani reports President Trump’s new ‘anti-weaponization’ fund has hit a legal roadblock.

The fund has generated a fierce backlash since it was announced last week, with even Republicans pressing acting Attorney General Todd Blanche over the eligibility considerations and the possibility that even violent rioters at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, would be free to seek compensation.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche speaks to a reporter outside the White House, Wednesday, May 27, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein)

Also on Friday, the federal judge in Florida overseeing Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS ordered Trump’s attorneys to respond to “grievous allegations” by settlement critics that the president abandoned his claims to avoid the court’s scrutiny of an illegal deal. U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams gave them until June 12 to respond in writing to allegations of collusion and whether the case should be reopened because the court was the “victim of a fraud.”

The Justice Department hasn’t formed the five-member commission that will decide on payout criteria, so there has been no money paid out yet or claims accepted.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys from the legal advocacy group Democracy Forward are seeking a court order halting the fund’s implementation and preventing the Trump administration from disbursing any payouts from it. The federal suit claims there is no legal basis or accountability behind the fund.

“President Trump and his allies have long accused Democrats of using the government and the legal system as political weapons,” plaintiffs’ lawyers wrote. “In doing so, the (Trump) administration fails to acknowledge the unprecedented campaign of targeting individuals and entities for retribution on personal and ideological grounds that it has carried out.”

Brinkema said it’s important to maintain the status quo — for at least the next two weeks — and to ensure that no funds are “irreversibly disbursed” from the fund. Her order temporarily prohibits the Trump administration from transferring any money to the fund, considering any claims or disbursing any money from it.

The Virginia lawsuit’s plaintiffs include a fired prosecutor and a college professor acquitted of assaulting federal agents at a protest.

“The unlawfulness that has imbued the Anti-Weaponization Fund from its inception requires that it be wholly dismantled,” the suit says.

At least two other lawsuits, both filed separately in Washington, also are challenging the fund’s creation. A lawsuit filed by the advocacy group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington refers to the fund as “a jaw-dropping act of presidential corruption.” Two police officers who helped defend the Capitol from a mob of Trump supporters sued last week.

During a congressional hearingBlanche wouldn’t rule out the possibility that rioters who assaulted police on Jan. 6 could be eligible for fund payouts.

Nearly 1,600 people were charged with Capitol riot-related federal crimes. Over 1,200 were convicted and sentenced before Trump handed out mass pardons, commuted prison sentences and ordered the dismissal of every pending Jan. 6 criminal case last year.

One of the plaintiffs in the Virginia case is former Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Floydwho prosecuted Capitol riot cases in Washington before he was fired last year by then-Attorney General Pam Bondi. Floyd believes his firing was retaliation for his Jan. 6 work.

“The President’s targeting of me and others involved in January 6 prosecutions leaves our country in a very dark place, sending a message that insurrection and sedition will be protected (and even encouraged) as long as it is on behalf of this administration,” Floyd said in a court filing.

Another plaintiff is California State University Channel Islands professor Jonathan Caravello, who was acquitted of an assault charge. He was accused of throwing a tear gas canister at federal agents during a 2025 protest against an immigration raid at a Camarillo, California, cannabis farm.

___

Associated Press writers Darlene Superville, Alanna Durkin Richer and Eric Tucker contributed to this report.

Politics

‘We are winning elections’: Bernie Sanders on Democrats’ progressive wing

Published

17 hours ago

September 6, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

‘We are winning elections’: Bernie Sanders on Democrats’ progressive wing

lead image

Politics

Trump wants the Postal Service to radically overhaul mail voting. But ballots are already going out.

Published

2 days ago

September 4, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

President Donald Trump’s controversial demands for the Postal Service to overhaul and monitor millions of mail ballots hit another snag on Friday, when North Carolina became the first state in the nation to start sending out ballots for the November election.

In March, Trump signed the initial executive order, which aimed to crack down on mail-in voting — which he regularly alleges without evidence is a vector for widespread voter fraud — and assert an unprecedented amount of federal control over the upcoming elections.

Under this order and the subsequent rule drafted by the U.S. Postal Service, the USPS would refuse to deliver ballots to states that failed to provide lists of eligible mail voters or did not adhere to an approved envelope design style.

Since then, the order has faced legal challenges, and it remains paused by a federal judge’s orders. But the Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to allow the new rule to proceed — something current and former election officials from both parties say would be both a legal nightmare that oversteps the federal government’s traditional role in elections and a logistical one that is happening far too close to the November election to implement even if they agreed with it.

“Why the hell are you rocking the boat this late in the game?” said Stephen Richer, a former Republican recorder of Maricopa County, Arizona, who has clashed with Trump allies for defending the security of the 2020 election.

Still, election officials are trying to project a sense of normalcy for voters, particularly in North Carolina, which serves as a test of whether established local election systems can operate normally amid intensifying federal scrutiny.

“I want to emphasize this point because there has been a lot of outside noise: Our county workers are ready,” Sam Hayes, a longtime Republican lawyer in the state and now executive director of the North Carolina State Board of Elections, said in a Thursday afternoon press conference.

He added, “All we can do is what we’re doing. … It is business as usual as far as I’m concerned.”

Despite the legal challenges, the Trump administration has continued to press the courts to let it proceed. The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to lift an order from a Massachusetts judge which temporarily prevents the USPS from enforcing their rule. It is the second time the Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to step in, after winning an earlier victory in which the high court dismissed an earlier hold on the rule as premature.

“The uncertainty is coming from a single activist judge who continues to try and obstruct President Trump from implementing commonsense measures to protect the security of mail-in ballots and ensure only Americans vote in American elections,” White House spokesperson Lauren Bis said in a statement. “These safeguards for mail ballots were proposed months ago giving election officials ample time to prepare for the 2026 election.”

The USPS did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Election officials said that if the rule goes into effect this close to November, it would cause chaos and place added strain on the USPS and election officials. And an anonymous federal whistleblower said in a report circulated earlier this week by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) that the USPS was moving forward in a “secretive, rushed, chaotic, and fundamentally flawed process” to try to implement the new system ahead of the midterms.

In the coming weeks, states across the country will follow North Carolina’s lead. Nine other states will begin mailing ballots in the next two weeks, according to a tracker from the National Conference of State Legislatures — with the biggest day for mailing coming 45 days before the election in mid-September.

“It would be so outrageous to try to let this go into effect. It’s hard to even imagine,” said Ben Hovland, a senior fellow for democracy at the progressive think tank Center for American Progress and former Democratic commissioner with the Election Assistance Commission who was fired by Trump in July.

He added, “It would be a break-glass moment for our democracy.”

The rule would require meticulous changes to ballot handling and tracking practices that Hovland said are impossible to implement before Election Day in about two months, effectively disenfranchising millions of voters.

“Ballots are printed. Envelopes are printed. You can go on and on with all the practical reasons that show that implementing something like this at this time is not feasible,” he said.

Richer said he doubted the new rules would bring about more security. Even if the USPS received lists from the states, according to the postal service’s final rule, it would not do any additional vetting of the list, Richer said.

“It’s just that the mail ballots have to be on that list, and I don’t see what added value for election integrity that does,” he said.

He added, “It creates a lot of administrative burden, and I think it creates a lot more opportunity for error.”

While a decision looms in the courts, election officials and experts cast doubt on the likelihood of the rules going into effect before November. A more pressing issue, they said, is the confusion and uncertainty surrounding mail-in ballots, which could subvert and change the behaviors of voters.

“It makes things seem messy or difficult, and it can dissuade people from participating or coming out to vote,” Hovland said. “It certainly also helps establish a pretext to make bad faith claims about election results.”

Hovland said that while none of these claims of voter fraud are backed up with facts, they could cause Americans to lose faith in the voting process.

Still, some current officials contended they were well-prepared for whatever happens — and that they’d be able to communicate effectively with voters who have become increasingly buffeted by dramatic rhetoric about the once-unmentioned nuts and bolts of actually running an election.

“There’s always a lot of noise around elections, that’s not going to change, and it can be hard to differentiate that from what’s actually going on on the ground,” said Jason Tyson, director of external affairs for the North Carolina State Board of Elections.

As Election Day approaches, Tyson and election officials said they urge voters to check their registration status and make a plan to vote.

He added, “I think we’ve got a really well-trained, solid staff who are ready, and who have gone through all of the checks and balances and points of contact that we need to do to get to where we are.”

Politics

Missouri Supreme Court pauses GOP gerrymander, likely netting Democrats 1 House seat

Published

3 days ago

September 3, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Missouri’s Supreme Court suspended a congressional map that state Republicans drew last year that would have netted the GOP an additional House seat, likely keeping the seat in Democratic hands this November.

The court ruled unanimously on Thursday that a referendum petition organized by Democrats to put the new congressional maps to a vote was incorrectly deemed insufficient by Republican Secretary of State Denny Hoskins, and ordered that the gerrymandered map be put to a vote in the fall.

Voters will ultimately decide the fate of the new lines in November. But in the meantime, it cannot be in place for the midterms, meaning Rep. Emanuel Cleaver’s original Kansas City-based district will likely stay in Democrats’ hands this fall.