A federal magistrate judge on Friday ordered the Trump administration to disclose the identities of the people who designed the structure of the nearly $1.8 billion "Anti-Weaponization Fund," dealing a fresh setback to the Justice Department in a lawsuit that has dogged it for months. U.S. Magistrate Judge Ivan D. Davis of the Eastern District of Virginia granted part of a motion to compel discovery, ruling from the bench in Alexandria that identifying the fund's original architects was fair game even though he limited the broader request as resembling a "fishing expedition."

"Who came up with it? That's what conception means," Davis told government lawyers, according to reporting on the hearing. The order does not make the discovery materials public while litigation continues, but it forces DOJ to start turning over names behind closed doors.

The fund was unveiled by the Justice Department in May as part of a settlement resolving President Trump's lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax records. It was designed to funnel taxpayer money — routed through the Treasury's Judgment Fund — to people who say they were "weaponized" against by federal investigators, with critics warning it could ultimately pay out to January 6 rioters who were convicted and later pardoned. The same settlement also granted Trump, his family and his businesses broad immunity from IRS audits.

Who's suing

The case was brought by Andrew Floyd, a former federal prosecutor who says he was fired after working January 6 Capitol riot cases, along with a law professor, career IRS employees, the city of New Haven, Connecticut, and other organizations represented by the legal group Democracy Forward. A judge already froze the fund in May, and by August, Attorney General Todd Blanche — facing bipartisan blowback in his own confirmation fight — put in writing that the fund "is rescinded" and "there is no fund."

"Today's order granting discovery is a significant step in getting to the bottom of the slush fund," a senior counsel for Democracy Forward said of Friday's ruling.

But plaintiffs argue Blanche's rescission document contains a loophole: it lacks signatures from the original settlement's signatories, meaning the fund and the related tax-audit immunity could theoretically be revived. Trump himself has said publicly that he wishes the fund "weren't dead," fueling the plaintiffs' push to keep the case — and the discovery process — alive rather than let the administration declare the matter moot.

The dispute has drawn scrutiny beyond the courtroom, with Republican senators having privately warned Blanche the program threatened his own confirmation — part of what pushed him to disavow it in August.

What happens next: discovery will proceed under seal as plaintiffs try to identify every official involved in conceiving the fund, evidence they say is needed to secure a permanent injunction rather than rely on the administration's informal promise that the program is finished. No date has been set for the next hearing, but Democracy Forward has signaled it intends to keep pressing the case even if DOJ argues it is now moot.