this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2026
90 points (100.0% liked)

politics

30038 readers
2205 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Judge wants proof that top DOJ officials are ‘not moving forward’ with plans for an Anti-Weaponization Fund

A federal judge has indefinitely blocked Donald Trump’s administration from implementing a nearly $1.8 billion compensation fund for his political allies after officials claimed they were “not moving forward” with the plans.

Friday’s injunction from Virginia District Judge Leonie Brinkema extends a previous order that prevented the government from “taking any further action pursuant to the creation or operation of the Anti-Weaponization Fund” — including transferring money to it, considering any claims and mailing any checks while a legal challenge plays out.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and the Department of Justice insisted the administration would follow the court’s order and abandon plans for the fund, but officials have also suggested that they are still looking for pathways to issue massive taxpayer-funded payouts to alleged “victims” of government “weaponization,” including January 6 rioters and close allies of the president.

top 3 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 7 points 56 minutes ago

Smart move, because you know this administration was just going to do it anyways once the controversy died down.

[–] ExtremeDullard@piefed.social 24 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

District court judges not trusting the DOJ not to pull a fast one is fucking wild.

It's truly a bizarro alternate reality we've all fallen into years ago...

[–] Belinda43@fedia.io 1 points 2 hours ago

Seriously??