The judges have issued their orders, but the Trump administration is choosing defiance with the Kennedy Center and the Anti-Weaponization fund

The Trump administration is currently navigating two significant legal standoffs, one involving the Anti-Weaponization Fund and another centered on the future of the Kennedy Center. In the first instance, the Justice Department on Friday snubbed a federal judge’s demand to swear that a nearly $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund is dead, arguing the request raises “serious separation of powers concerns.” 

As reported by The Hill, Judge Leonie Brinkema indefinitely blocked the fund last Friday. Brinkema issued a seven-day deadline for acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward to declare under penalty of perjury that it would not move forward “to avoid any further litigation.”

At the Kennedy Center, per The Hill, the administration stated in a court filing late Friday that it is still considering a “partial closure” at the center, despite a previous ruling requiring that the institution remain open. Last month, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper ruled that the board had acted improperly in voting to shut down the center for renovations starting on July 5. He reportedly also reversed the board’s decision to add President Trump’s name to the venue.

The administration seems to be finding ways to stand by its original goals

The Hill reported that despite the court’s order regarding the Anti-Weaponization Fund, DOJ attorneys declined to commit in writing, arguing against the need to do so to have the lawsuit dismissed. “Such declarations are unnecessary and the compelled testimony of senior officials from the Executive Branch implicates serious separation of powers concerns,” Woodward’s senior counsel Andrew Block wrote in a filing. 

Per the outlet, the president and CEO of Democracy Forward, which is representing the plaintiffs, stated that “It is telling that even after the federal court gave them a week, the Acting Attorney General and other senior administration officials continue to refuse to say under oath that the Slush Fund is dead and won’t operate in the future. Nor have they provided any information under oath about their compliance with the court’s prior directives.”

The Hill recorded that Blanche announced plans for the $1.776 billion compensation fund following a settlement between the Trump family and the IRS in mid-May. The stated goal was to provide payments to individuals who claimed to have “suffered weaponization and lawfare” by the government. According to reports, critics of the fund were worried the money would flow to allies of the president. 

The administration later claimed the fund was “not moving forward, ever.” However, The Hill noted that the current refusal to swear to this in court has left the legal matter unresolved. Block argued that previous statements made to abide by the court order should be sufficient, noting they were made “against the backdrop of serious penalties for falsity.” A response from Judge Brinkema is expected no earlier than Monday.

With regards to the Kennedy Center, the judge reportedly requested more details on renovations and programming. In response,  the center’s executive director, Matt Floca, indicated they are presenting the board with three options, including “complete closure” with “no ongoing programming,” “partial closure” with “limited programming,” or “phased closures” and a “full slate of programming.”

Administration lawyers noted that Cooper’s order did not explicitly block the center from closing for renovations, nor did it require them to reschedule cancelled programming. According to the outlet, they expect these renovations to occur between July and December. Furthermore, the government reportedly claimed compliance with the order to remove the president’s name from signage. 

“Defendants will expeditiously address any remaining uses of the President’s name if and when they become aware of their existence,” the administration wrote. The Hill highlighted that this response has not satisfied the plaintiffs. 

Attorneys for Representative Joyce Beatty, who brought the lawsuit, argued that the filing “confirms that they plan to turn the Kennedy Center into a lifeless husk.” They further claimed that, absent intervention, the center would have “no meaningful operations after July 5, 2026.”

Adding to the controversy, The New York Times highlighted questions surrounding the actual removal of the president’s name from the marble facade. While workers hung massive tarps on June 13 to facilitate the removal, they pointed out that the tarps remained in place a week later, preventing the public from verifying that the signage had been fully addressed. 

In response, Kennedy Center spokeswoman Roma Daravi stated that the scaffolding and tarps will remain up as crews address maintenance needs of the marble and soffit panels. The NYT reported that critics like Representative Beatty remain skeptical, stating, “He lost in court, his name came down, and now he is trying to hide the result from the public.” 

Per the outlet, Beatty’s team has accused the government of “willfully sabotaging Kennedy Center’s iconic facade to assuage Defendants’ vanity.”