The City of New Haven’s lawsuit against the Anti-Weaponization Fund is a federal case in the Eastern District of Virginia that helped block a $1.776 billion Trump administration program before a single claim was paid. New Haven joined four other plaintiffs in Andrew Floyd et al. v. U.S. Department of Justice et al. (Case No. 26-cv-1399), filed May 22, 2026. Within a week a judge froze the fund; within three weeks the Acting Attorney General told Congress the administration was walking away from it; and by June 12, 2026, the same judge issued a preliminary injunction indefinitely barring the government from operating the fund or reviving it under another name. New Haven was the only city in the country to sign on as a plaintiff.
What the Fund Was
The Anti-Weaponization Fund was announced by the Justice Department on May 18, 2026, as part of a settlement in President Donald J. Trump v. Internal Revenue Service. Trump had sued the IRS in January 2026 for $10 billion over the 2019 leak of his tax returns by an IRS contractor. Under the settlement, Trump and his family received a formal apology and no money. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche then directed $1.776 billion from the federal Judgment Fund into a new account to compensate people who claimed they had been victims of government “weaponization and lawfare.”1U.S. Department of Justice. Justice Department Announces Anti-Weaponization Fund
The fund was to be administered by a five-member commission appointed by the attorney general, with the president holding removal power. Payout decisions could not be appealed in court, and individual awards did not have to be disclosed publicly.2Axios. Trump Anti-Weaponization Fund Judgment Fund Explainer The complaint that established the fund limited eligibility to people who alleged they had been targeted by Democratic officials, a limitation the plaintiffs would later attack as viewpoint discrimination.3Democracy Forward. Floyd et al. v. DOJ, Case 26-cv-1399 Filing Trump allies and January 6 defendants publicly announced plans to file claims, including former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio, former HHS spokesperson Michael Caputo, MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, and former congressman George Santos. No claims were ever processed. The Justice Department never formed the commission or set payout criteria before the fund was blocked.4Forbes. Applicants for Trump’s Anti-Weaponization Fund Include Proud Boys Leader, J6 Rioters and George Santos
The Lawsuit New Haven Joined
The other plaintiffs in the case were Andrew Floyd, a career federal prosecutor fired after supervising January 6 cases; Jonathan Caravello, a California State University Channel Islands professor arrested and acquitted while protesting federal immigration agents; the National Abortion Federation; and Common Cause, a government accountability organization. The plaintiffs were represented by the nonprofit Democracy Forward, which covered the legal costs.3Democracy Forward. Floyd et al. v. DOJ, Case 26-cv-1399 Filing
The 45-page complaint raised four principal claims:
- First Amendment viewpoint discrimination, because the fund favored claimants alleging targeting by Democratic officials and excluded those alleging mistreatment by Republican ones.
- Fifth Amendment equal protection, because similarly situated people were treated differently based on political alignment.
- Separation of powers and the Spending Clause, because the fund drew from the Judgment Fund without congressional authorization for this purpose.
- Administrative Procedure Act violations, because the fund was created without notice-and-comment rulemaking and was arbitrary and capricious.
The plaintiffs asked the court to declare the fund unconstitutional, block all transfers of money, and order the $1.776 billion returned to the Judgment Fund.5Thomson Reuters. Watchdogs, Former Prosecutor Sue to Block Trump DOJ Settlement Fund
Why New Haven Was the Only City
New Haven, a city of about 135,000 residents, was the sole municipal plaintiff. Corporation Counsel Allie Jacobs said Democracy Forward approached the city after working with it on an earlier lawsuit over SNAP benefits. Mayor Justin Elicker said he agreed to join once the nonprofit confirmed it would cover legal costs, and because opposing the fund aligned with the city’s values. Elicker acknowledged the risk that suing might “attract undue attention” from the federal government, but said that concern should push more cities to join rather than hold New Haven back.6Yale Daily News. New Haven Is the Only City Fighting Trump’s Slush Fund in Court. Why?
Dan Barrett, legal director of the Connecticut ACLU, offered a practical explanation for New Haven’s fit as a plaintiff. Because the city was already being sued by the federal government over its sanctuary policies, it “checks a different box” for standing purposes. Barrett said joining suits like this “may both be the right political move and the right move for small-d democracy.”
Elicker himself called the fund “a transparent attempt to use hard-earned taxpayer dollars as a slush fund to support and reward his political allies, supporters and, unconscionably, January 6th insurrectionists,” arguing that federal tax dollars should instead go toward “critical government functions and services like public safety, infrastructure, Medicare and Social Security.”7City of New Haven. City of New Haven Anti-Weaponization Fund Press Release
How the Court Blocked the Fund
On May 28, 2026, the plaintiffs filed an emergency motion after the Justice Department refused to guarantee that money would not be distributed. Less than 24 hours later, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema issued a temporary injunction blocking the government from creating or operating the fund, transferring any money, or processing claims.8Democracy Forward. Federal Court Pauses Trump-Vance Administration’s $1.776 Billion Slush Fund
On June 2, 2026, Acting Attorney General Blanche told a House Appropriations subcommittee that the administration was “not moving forward with the fund, period.” When Rep. Grace Meng asked whether that meant ever, he answered, “Correct.” Blanche declined Meng’s request to put the promise in writing, saying the hearing transcript would suffice.9Roll Call. Blanche Says Anti-Weaponization Fund Not Moving Forward Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called Blanche’s and Trump’s statements “worthless” and said Senate Democrats would try to force a vote to abolish the fund by statute.10KCRA. Anti-Weaponization Fund Not Moving Forward, Blanche Says
Government lawyers then argued the case was moot. At the June 12 hearing, Judge Brinkema disagreed, pointing to statements from President Trump after Blanche’s testimony expressing a desire to “move forward with the fund.”11CNBC. Trump DOJ Fund Preliminary Injunction She issued a preliminary injunction indefinitely blocking the fund and barring officials from “reconstituting the Anti-Weaponization Fund under a different name.” She gave the Justice Department one week to submit sworn declarations from Blanche and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent confirming in “unambiguous” terms that the fund would not go forward. If those declarations were filed, she indicated, the case could then be treated as moot.12CNN. Anti-Weaponization Fund Ruling
A parallel case filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (Case No. 1:26-cv-01789) reached a different result. On June 10, 2026, Judge Richard Leon in the District of Columbia denied a temporary restraining order, accepting the government’s representation that the fund was moot.13WSLS. Judge Extends Block on Trump’s $1.8 Billion Anti-Weaponization Fund A third challenge, brought by two Capitol Police officers who defended the building on January 6, was also pending in Washington.2Axios. Trump Anti-Weaponization Fund Judgment Fund Explainer
What the Ruling Did Not Undo
The injunction blocked the fund, not the rest of the underlying settlement. Blanche confirmed in his congressional testimony that other terms of the Trump v. IRS settlement remain in effect, including a provision that bars the IRS from auditing the Trump family or business.14NBC News. Todd Blanche DOJ Anti-Weaponization Fund
New Haven’s Broader Litigation Against the Administration
The Anti-Weaponization Fund suit is one of several fights the city has picked with the federal government. As of mid-2026, New Haven had joined five lawsuits against the Trump administration and filed 24 amicus briefs.15City of New Haven. City of New Haven Press Release
The largest of the parallel disputes is United States v. State of Connecticut (Case No. 3:26-cv-00568), filed April 13, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The 83-page complaint names the state, Governor Ned Lamont, Attorney General William Tong, the City of New Haven, and Mayor Elicker as defendants, alleging that Connecticut’s Trust Act and Elicker’s 2020 “Welcoming City” executive order obstruct federal immigration enforcement in violation of the Supremacy Clause.16Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. United States v. State of Connecticut The complaint cited Connecticut’s compliance rate with federal immigration detainers, less than 20 percent since 2020.17Hartford Courant. U.S. Justice Dept. Sues CT, New Haven Over Sanctuary Policies Tong called the suit “baseless”; Elicker said the city would “fight the lawsuit with all we’ve got.”18NBC Connecticut. Department of Justice Sues Connecticut and New Haven Over Sanctuary Policies Judge Alvin W. Thompson granted the defendants an extension to respond, setting a new deadline of July 6, 2026.
Elicker has also described a separate federal effort to “illegally terminate” funding for public safety and infrastructure projects in the city, though specific dollar amounts have not been publicly detailed.19CT Mirror. New Haven Sues Trump Over Anti-Weaponization Fund In April 2025, the city had already joined a 16-jurisdiction coalition that won a preliminary injunction barring the federal government from withholding funds based on sanctuary policies.20City of New Haven. City of New Haven Welcoming City Press Release