DOJ tells courts the Anti-Weaponization Fund was not going forward
On June 5, 2026, DOJ filed parallel responses in E.D. Virginia and D.D.C. stating that the announced Anti-Weaponization Fund had not been set up and was not going forward. The filings said no money had been transferred, no claims process existed, and no members had been appointed. These were government litigation positions; no current official application portal or deadline is represented as verified.
Evidence on file
2 documents on file
Govt response2 documents
Responses from DC DOC, the U.S. Marshals, and federal agencies.
motion · Jun 5, 2026
CREW v. DOJ — Response stating Anti-Weaponization Fund was not going forward (ECF No. 15)
DOJ stated in a parallel June 5, 2026 filing that the announced fund had not been established and was not going forward. It said no money, claims process, or appointed members existed. This is a government litigation position, not a final merits judgment.
motion · Jun 5, 2026
Floyd v. DOJ — Response stating Anti-Weaponization Fund was not going forward (ECF No. 62)
DOJ stated in a June 5, 2026 filing that the announced fund had not been established and was not going forward. It said no money, claims process, or appointed members existed. This is a government litigation position, not a final merits judgment.
Discussion
Comments here become part of the public record. Moderated.
No approved comments yet. Create an account and add the first case note.
Add to the record
Create an account to comment on this case.
Bring the opinion, question, or missing context that other platforms bury. Comments are signed-only, moderated, and tied to one real profile.