Staff Reports
Senators Bill Cassidy and Cory Booker just did something you don’t see every day: a Republican and a Democrat teamed up in court to tell a judge to stop the Justice Department’s so‑called “Anti‑Weaponization Fund.” The bipartisan amicus brief asks the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to preserve a temporary block and make it permanent, arguing the fund would let the Executive Branch spend almost $1.8 billion without Congress’s say‑so. That’s not politics — that’s a straight constitutional beef over the Appropriations Clause and separation of powers.
What the brief actually says
The Cassidy‑Booker filing calls the fund an “unconstitutional end‑run around Congress.” The senators argue the settlement that created the roughly $1.7–$1.776 billion pool came from litigation tied to President Trump’s lawsuit over leaked tax returns, but the problem now is procedural and constitutional: the Administration appears ready to let the Executive spend money on payouts without an appropriation. The brief asks the court to go beyond a temporary stop and permanently enjoin the program, noting the danger of setting a precedent that future administrations could use to reward allies or punish opponents.
Why conservatives should pay attention
Conservatives who care about limited government and the Constitution should be the first to dislike this scheme. The power of the purse belongs to Congress for a reason — it’s the heart of representative government and a key check on executive excess. Letting the White House hand out nearly $2 billion outside the appropriations process would be a dangerous precedent. Call it cynical if you like, but even if Senator Cassidy’s political fortunes have changed recently, the legal principle he’s defending here is one conservatives should cheer.
Political theater won’t cut it — the court must act
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has told Congress the DOJ is “not moving forward” with disbursements, but that’s only a verbal pause. The settlement itself remains intact unless a court or Congress formally kills it. That’s why the bipartisan brief matters: it puts the constitutional argument squarely in front of U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema and urges her to close the loophole permanently. Relying on vague promises from the Executive is weak tea; the rule of law needs a real ruling.
What to watch next
The next moves are straightforward: will Judge Brinkema convert the temporary injunction into a permanent ban? Will the DOJ withdraw the settlement? Or will Congress step up and legislate the fund out of existence? Any other outcome risks turning the appropriations power into a political slush fund that future presidents can weaponize — which is exactly what the brief warns against.
At the end of the day this isn’t about who backed whom in a primary or which senator wants headlines. It’s about protecting the Constitution from a creative accounting trick that hands unilateral spending power to the Executive. Whether you like Senator Cassidy or not, this bipartisan appeal is a reminder that the checks and balances still matter — and if we let this fund stand, we’ll have lost more than money; we’ll have lost a little more of the republic.
