WASHINGTON — A federal judge suggested a court-appointed “neutral” overseer could allay concerns that the Justice Department might use a long-standing U.S. fund to revive plans to compensate supporters of President Donald Trump as victims of government “weaponization.”

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema made clear during a hearing Friday in Virginia that any such court action would depend on whether a lawsuit challenging the special compensation program can go forward.

But her comments suggested that she’s thinking about the court’s ability to intervene, as claims for payouts from what’s called the Judgment Fund have mounted since U.S. officials said they wouldn’t create a separate, dedicated $1.8 billion pool to pay individuals Trump alleged were targets of politicized law enforcement.

The judge made the comments in a lawsuit challenging an agreement this summer to resolve Trump’s $10 billion case against the Internal Revenue Service over a leak of his tax information years ago. That deal between Trump in his personal capacity and the Justice and Treasury Departments — which he controls as head of the executive branch — included the “anti-weaponization” fund as well as immunity from audits for past tax filings by the president, his oldest sons Don Jr. and Eric, and the Trump Organization.

Brinkema didn’t rule from the bench on whether the lawsuit could proceed. The case features a coalition of challengers with varying claims for why they were harmed by the Trump deal, including a union representing Treasury Department employees that alleges its members risk being compelled to violate the law by halting audits or face retaliation.

The Justice Department has argued the case is moot, pointing to statements by top officials under oath that the “weaponization” fund is dead. DOJ also said claims related to the audit immunity are too speculative because no Treasury employee has come forward to say they were asked to take action.

The challengers contend the dispute is still live because of comments by Attorney General Todd Blanche and Trump about wanting to find ways to compensate people who would have been eligible for the “anti-weaponization” fund.

The fund was viewed as a way to streamline claims from hundreds of people pardoned by Trump for charges related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol as lawmakers met to certify his presidential election loss to Joe Biden. The Justice Department said the program would be nonpartisan, but the settlement terms listed examples of actions by Democratic officials.

Under existing federal law, individuals with claims for damages against the government must go through a monthslong administrative review process and, if that isn’t successful, can sue in federal court. Individuals charged or convicted in connection with Jan. 6 have filed multiple lawsuits seeking millions of dollars in recent months, court records show.

During Friday’s hearing, Justice Department attorney Andrew Block argued another reason the case should be tossed out is because there is no longer a “remedy” the court could impose now that the fund won’t happen. Brinkema pushed back, saying she could envision options such as requiring a “neutral” person to oversee claims related to Jan. 6 and Biden-era prosecutions involving incidents at reproductive healthcare facilities, which the Trump settlement also mentioned.

Brinkema told Block that statements by Trump and other administration officials “undercut” his representations in court and that the underlying issues in the case related to the fund plan are “alive and kicking.” She rejected his argument that a Florida federal judge’s findings that Trump sued the IRS in bad faith and reached a collusive settlement with his administration weren’t relevant to her consideration.

Trump and the Justice Department are appealing the Florida judge’s order.

A lawyer for the challengers said that it would be difficult to present more specific evidence related to the audit immunity claim because IRS auditors are under strict rules about what they can disclose. Brinkema questioned if that would “doom” that part of the lawsuit. The lawyer argued it was still live as long as the government maintained the immunity protection was enforceable.

The case is Floyd v. Department of Justice, 26-cv-1399, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria).

_____

©2026 Bloomberg L.P. Visit bloomberg.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.