Judge extends block on DOJ-linked “anti-weaponization” fund and requires sworn assurance it is not moving forward

A federal judge has extended a court order blocking a Justice Department-linked “anti-weaponization” fund, according to a CNBC Politics report, and directed Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to provide a sworn statement within one week confirming the effort will not proceed.

The court action, described by the report as granting a “longer-term block” after an earlier preliminary injunction, requires officials to address the status of the fund in writing under oath. The judge’s stated focus, as reported, is to obtain a guarantee that the funding plan is “dead,” rather than subject to further implementation or revision.

Blanche, serving as Acting Attorney General, and Bessent, the Treasury Secretary, are named in the reporting as the officials responsible for the requested sworn declaration. The order effectively prolongs the period in which the government is prevented from moving forward with the fund while the court reviews compliance and the government’s position.

The “anti-weaponization” label, as used in the court fight, refers to the government initiative targeted by the injunction. The specifics of the fund’s structure, intended recipients, and the underlying authority for the program were not detailed in the information available here, beyond the reporting characterization of the program and the timing of the court deadline.

Under the judge’s instruction, the next procedural step is for Blanche and Bessent to submit the declaration by the deadline set by the court. Once filed, the judge would have a basis to determine whether the government’s assurance satisfies the order and whether the injunction should remain in place or be modified.

The practical effect of the extended block, based on the reported terms, is to delay any execution of the fund during the court’s continued oversight. That can affect the timing of any spending or contracting activities that would otherwise follow, and it preserves the ability of the court to keep the matter contained while compliance is clarified.

If the sworn declaration does not meet the court’s expectations or is challenged by the parties, the case could proceed to further litigation over the program’s legality and whether the government’s stated plans amount to a real termination rather than a pause or reconfiguration, according to how courts typically handle extended injunctions pending compliance.