DOJ Refuses Sworn Affidavits in Anti-Weaponization Fund Case as Judge Brinkema Faces New Legal Challenge

Department of Justice Pushes Back Against Court Order

A major legal dispute has emerged after the U.S. Department of Justice declined to provide sworn affidavits requested by a federal judge regarding the controversial Anti-Weaponization Fund. The case, brought by Democracy Forward, centers on whether the federal government has genuinely abandoned plans to create and operate the fund. Judge Leonie Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia had ordered senior officials to submit declarations under penalty of perjury confirming that the fund would not move forward.

Instead of filing the requested affidavits, the Department of Justice submitted a legal response arguing that such declarations were unnecessary. The filing, submitted on behalf of senior officials including Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Associate Attorney General Stan Woodward, and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, contended that prior public statements already made clear that the fund had been abandoned.

Court Demands Stronger Evidence

Judge Brinkema previously indicated that she would dismiss the case as moot only if government officials formally swore that the Anti-Weaponization Fund would never be created or operated. The court wanted legally binding declarations rather than informal statements made outside the courtroom.

The Justice Department argued that compelling sworn testimony from high-ranking executive branch officials raises significant separation-of-powers concerns. According to the filing, testimony already provided by Todd Blanche before Congress should be sufficient evidence that the administration has no intention of proceeding with the fund.

Critics, however, argue that statements made in congressional hearings do not carry the same legal weight as sworn affidavits submitted directly to a federal court. They maintain that if the government truly intends to abandon the project, it should have no difficulty making those assurances under penalty of perjury.

Growing Scrutiny of DOJ Conduct

The dispute has intensified broader concerns about how the Department of Justice is handling litigation before federal courts. Legal observers note that federal judges increasingly appear unwilling to accept government representations without formal documentation and sworn testimony.

Democracy Forward and its supporters argue that the government's refusal to provide affidavits raises questions about its willingness to stand behind its public statements. They contend that federal courts have the authority to demand evidence necessary to determine whether a case is genuinely moot.

Meanwhile, the controversy is unfolding alongside separate legal proceedings in Miami, where allegations of misconduct, fraud on the court, and deceptive practices are also being examined. These parallel cases have drawn national attention and increased scrutiny of senior Justice Department officials.

What Happens Next?

Judge Brinkema is now expected to decide whether the government's response satisfies the court's concerns. If she remains unconvinced, she may issue a scheduling order requiring further litigation and a formal response to the lawsuit.

The outcome could have significant implications not only for the future of the Anti-Weaponization Fund but also for the relationship between federal courts and executive branch officials. As the legal battle continues, questions remain about whether senior government leaders will eventually be required to provide sworn testimony or whether their public statements will be considered sufficient.

The case has quickly become a high-profile test of judicial authority, government accountability, and the limits of executive power, ensuring that the controversy surrounding the Anti-Weaponization Fund remains far from over.