The Justice Department refused Thursday to provide a federal judge with a written declaration formally confirming that the Trump administration’s controversial $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund has been abandoned, keeping the legal dispute alive despite Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s earlier public statement that the fund was dead.

Judge Leonie Brinkema had asked the DOJ to submit a sworn declaration after Blanche told a House Appropriations subcommittee on June 2 that the department was “not moving forward with the fund, period.” The DOJ responded to the judge’s request by arguing that a formal declaration was “unnecessary” and raised “serious separation of powers concerns.”

The fund arose from a legally disputed settlement of a lawsuit the Trump administration filed against the IRS. It was designed to compensate individuals who claimed they were victims of government overreach or “weaponization” under prior administrations. Critics argued the fund was constitutionally improper and effectively created a mechanism for political payouts using public money.

Judge Brinkema had placed an indefinite block on the fund earlier this month after finding that the administration had not provided sufficient legal justification for its creation or disbursement. The judge’s request for written confirmation was an attempt to bring the matter to a clean close, but the DOJ’s refusal has left the legal status of the fund unresolved.

The practical effect is that the nearly $1.8 billion remains in dispute. Whether the administration intends to revive the fund at some point, or whether the refusal to commit in writing is purely a procedural position, is not yet clear. Blanche’s public comments suggested the fund was finished. The DOJ’s court behaviour suggests something more complicated.

Legal analysts noted that the administration’s refusal to submit a sworn declaration carries its own risks. If the DOJ later tries to revive the fund, a court could view the earlier public statements as an admission. Trump’s administration has been under political pressure on economic and legal fronts simultaneously. The DOJ this week was also dealing with the separate diplomatic fallout from the G7 summit.

No hearing date has been set for the next phase of the legal proceedings on the fund. Judge Brinkema has not issued additional orders following the DOJ’s refusal. The case is being watched closely by legal advocacy groups on both sides of the debate over government accountability and executive power.

The fund controversy reflects a broader pattern of disputes between the current administration and federal courts over the scope of executive authority. Polling this week showed Trump’s economic approval at a record low. The legal battles surrounding the fund are part of a wider challenge the administration faces from the judiciary on multiple policy fronts. CNBC reported details of the initial injunction earlier this month.