This article has been corrected. 2 corrections — see Corrections at the end of this article.

Basis for Inclusion

Andrew J. Block is included under Anchor E (Senior Non-Elected Federal Official) as a sitting DOJ Senior Counsel to the Associate Attorney General and CBP Chief Counsel who personally appeared in two federal courts to defend the Trump administration’s $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” — which critics across the political spectrum, and at least 35 former federal judges, have characterized as an unconstitutional self-dealing mechanism that could pay January 6 rioters with taxpayer money.

Block’s conduct in both hearings — including telling one federal judge “I don’t know” why the fund’s founding documents would not be rescinded, and telling another that he lacked “the ability to speak directly to the attorney general” about a matter of national significance — is documented in federal court proceedings. His simultaneous defense of the fund in legal filings as “moot” while preserving its legal viability through inaction implicates his direct role in the administration’s management of this litigation.

Block came directly to government service from nearly five years at America First Legal, Stephen Miller’s political litigation organization, earning $218,341 annually. That background is relevant context for evaluating the non-career nature of his current appointment.

Background

Career Timeline

Andrew J. Block (Virginia State Bar No. 91537) follows a career arc from conservative legal movement organizations to Trump administration government roles.

• Education: J.D., George Mason University School of Law (Scalia Law School), 2013–2016; B.A. Political Theory and Constitutional Democracy, Michigan State University James Madison College, 2008–2012
• Heritage Foundation legal intern during law school
• U.S. House of Representatives: Legislative Correspondent → Legislative Assistant → Counsel (Tax L.A.)
• U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Senior Counsel: March 2019 – January 2021 (Trump 1.0 administration)
• Venn Strategies, Vice President: January 2019 – March 2019
• America First Legal, Senior Counsel: May 2021 – January 2026 — 4 years and 8 months at Stephen Miller’s anti-Biden litigation organization; compensation: $218,341 annually
• CBP Chief Counsel: January 2026 – Present — chief legal officer of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, overseeing 400+ attorneys
• DOJ Senior Counsel to the Associate Attorney General: 2026 – Present (concurrent role); lead government counsel in anti-weaponization fund litigation

America First Legal Context

America First Legal was founded in April 2021 by Stephen Miller (Trump’s former White House senior adviser and architect of the family separation policy) and Gene Hamilton (Trump’s former Counselor to Attorneys General Sessions and Barr). The organization was explicitly created to use litigation to oppose Biden-era policies. Its founding board of directors included Mark Meadows and Matthew Whitaker. Block was one of the organization’s senior attorneys throughout its founding years, working alongside figures who are themselves subjects of accountability profiles in this database. He left America First Legal to take concurrent government appointments in January 2026 — within months of Trump’s second inauguration.

The Anti-Weaponization Fund

What the Fund Is

On May 18, 2026, the Trump DOJ announced it had settled Trump v. Department of the Treasury — a $10 billion lawsuit Trump filed against his own administration over the leak of his tax returns by former IRS contractor Charles Littlejohn. Rather than defend the case, DOJ officials arranged a preemptive dismissal and announced a “settlement” creating the $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund.”

The fund would:

• Draw from the Judgment Fund — a permanent taxpayer-appropriated fund Congress created for court judgments and settlements, not executive disbursements
• Pay individuals who claim they “suffered weaponization and lawfare” from the federal government
• Be administered by a five-person panel appointed by the Attorney General with no independent oversight
• Include January 6 participants — Trump publicly declined to rule out paying rioters who assaulted Capitol Police officers

The settlement also “RELEASES, WAIVES, ACQUITS, and FOREVER DISCHARGES” the Trump family, every Trump entity, and every Trump trust from any claims that could have been asserted against them.

Judicial and Expert Response

The legal reaction was swift and bipartisan:

• 35 former federal judges (including retired appellate Judge J. Michael Luttig and former U.S. District Judges Nancy Gertner and Shira Scheindlin) filed a Rule 60(b) motion calling the settlement “a product of collusion and is itself a fraud on the Court” and arguing that Judge Kathleen Williams had been “deceived” into dismissing the case
• Judge Williams (S.D. Fla.) ordered Trump’s attorneys to respond to the fraud/deception allegations
• CREW described it as “what may be the single most corrupt act of self-dealing by any administration in American history”
• Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: concluded DOJ’s use of the Judgment Fund “almost certainly violates the law”
• Capitol Police officers filed suit calling it a “slush fund” for “insurrectionists”
• Former Jan. 6 prosecutor Andrew Floyd — who was fired for his J6 prosecution work — filed a lawsuit specifically to protect the accountability convictions he spent years securing
• Republican senators expressed public and private opposition; Senate Republican leadership delayed a border security package vote in part due to concerns about the fund
• Judge Kathleen Williams (S.D. Fla.) — in a July 13, 2026 56-page ruling — voided the original IRS settlement entirely, finding that Trump, his private attorneys, and the DOJ had colluded to manipulate the judicial process; the settlement was declared null and parties were barred from citing it as legal authority; Trump’s lawyer Alejandro Brito was referred to the Florida bar for disciplinary proceedings

At least five separate federal lawsuits were filed to block the fund. The fund was formally rescinded by Acting AG Todd Blanche on August 2–3, 2026, under pressure from Republican senators blocking his confirmation as permanent Attorney General.

Documented Actions

1. Lead Government Counsel in Anti-Weaponization Fund Litigation

Andrew Block served as the named government counsel of record in two separate federal courts defending the Anti-Weaponization Fund: Floyd v. Department of Justice before Judge Leonie Brinkema (E.D. Va.) and CREW v. Department of Justice before Judge Richard Leon (D.D.C.). Block signed court filings alongside Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward.

SourcesFloyd v. Department of Justice, E.D. Va. (ECF filings with Block’s signature); ABC News (June 6, 2026); NBC News (June 5, 2026); JURIST (June 6, 2026)In the Virginia case, Block filed a brief arguing the lawsuits were “simultaneously moot and premature” because “no Members were appointed. No claims procedures were established. No claims were formally submitted, received, adjudicated, granted, or denied.” The legal theory: because the fund had not yet disbursed money, no one had standing to challenge it — while simultaneously contending that because the fund was “not going forward,” the case was moot. The administration maintained both positions simultaneously, preserving the fund’s legal existence while preventing courts from permanently blocking it.

2. “I Don’t Know” — Judge Leon Hearing (D.D.C.)

On June 4, 2026, Andrew Block appeared before U.S. District Judge Richard Leon at a hearing on CREW’s request for a temporary restraining order. Leon asked Block twice why the DOJ would not formally rescind the order that established the fund, rather than relying on Acting AG Todd Blanche’s congressional testimony that the fund was “not moving forward.”

Block’s answer: “I don’t know.”

SourcesNBC News (June 4, 2026); MS Now (June 4, 2026)Leon rejected CREW’s bid for an immediate block while indicating he remained open to longer-term relief. Block was the only government lawyer present. He repeated throughout the hearing that Blanche’s statements were sufficient assurance while being unable to explain why the founding documents remained in effect.

3. “I Don’t Have the Ability to Speak to the Attorney General” — Judge Brinkema Hearing (E.D. Va.)

On June 12, 2026 — the day the preliminary injunction was entered — Judge Leonie Brinkema asked Block directly why the DOJ had not formally rescinded its memo related to the creation of the fund.

Block’s answer: “I don’t have the ability to speak directly to the attorney general.”

Brinkema’s response: “I cannot believe, given the significance, you don’t have an answer.” She added that “there’s a huge gap in the record” without an answer to that question.

Brinkema extended her preliminary injunction indefinitely blocking the fund, and imposed an additional requirement: Block’s client — the DOJ — had one week to produce sworn declarations from Acting AG Todd Blanche and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stating under penalty of perjury that the fund was permanently dead.

SourcesNBC News (June 12, 2026); federal court records (Floyd v. Department of Justice, E.D. Va.)Brinkema noted that none of the government’s prior statements had been made under penalty of perjury, and that she believed the public was largely against “$1.8 billion in taxpayer dollars being diverted to people who committed crimes against law enforcement.”

4. Characterizing Jan. 6 Prosecutors and Capitol Officers as “Ideological Objectors”

In court filings, Block’s briefs described the plaintiffs — who included a fired Jan. 6 prosecutor and Capitol Police officers who defended the building during the attack — as “classic ideological objectors rather than genuinely injured parties” who lacked standing to challenge the fund.

The full passage from Block’s brief: “By nevertheless accepting Plaintiffs’ baseless standing theories and meritless claims, the Court would effectively unwind a preferable political resolution. All in service of Plaintiffs who are classic ideological objectors rather than genuinely injured parties. That would undermine, rather than promote, ‘the core values of American democracy’ that Plaintiffs purport to be defending.”

SourcesABC News (June 6, 2026); court filing text quoted in multiple outletsOne of those plaintiffs, Andrew Floyd, had been fired from the DOJ for his January 6 prosecution work. Capitol Police officer plaintiffs were attacked by members of the same group that could receive payouts from the fund Block was defending.

5. Strategic Ambiguity — Maintaining the Fund as a Live Option

The pattern across Block’s litigation conduct reflects a deliberate strategy: argue the fund is “not going forward” to prevent courts from permanently blocking it while refusing to take any formal action (rescission, formal withdrawal, sworn declaration) that would make that claim legally binding. As CNBC and ENMNEWS noted, “By fighting to keep the fund open in principle even while claiming it will never launch, DOJ preserves the option to resurrect it if political winds shift.”

Trump’s own public statements confirmed this ambiguity. During the same period Block was arguing the fund was dead in federal court, Trump told reporters: “I think the weaponization fund is a great idea, and so do many other Republicans… If they get it approved, that’s great. If they don’t get it approved, I’d be disappointed.”

SourcesNBC News (June 12, 2026); CNBC (May 22, 2026); ENMNEWS (June 5, 2026); CBS News (June 2026)Block’s position before two federal judges — maintaining mootness arguments while the president publicly expressed commitment to the fund — placed him in the role of making representations to courts that were materially undermined by his principal’s public statements.

6. Sworn Declaration Refusal — “Serious Separation of Powers Concerns”

On June 19, 2026 — one week after Brinkema issued her preliminary injunction and imposed a one-week deadline — Block filed a formal notice on behalf of DOJ explicitly refusing to submit the sworn declarations Judge Brinkema had ordered. The filing argued the declarations were “unnecessary” and that compelling such testimony from senior officials “implicates serious separation of powers concerns.” Block’s brief added: “Judges do not get to insert themselves into the department’s routine settlement authority.”

The refusal transformed the interaction from a government lawyer unable to explain agency decisions (“I don’t know”; “I don’t have the ability to speak directly to the attorney general”) into a government lawyer arguing that a federal court has no constitutional authority to demand that executive officials swear to their stated intentions. Brinkema responded by ruling the case not moot and proceeding with discovery.

SourcesCBS News (June 19, 2026); CNN Politics (June 19, 2026); The Hill (June 19, 2026); CNBC (June 19, 2026); court record Floyd v. Department of Justice, E.D. Va., Docket No. 1:26-cv-01399 (CourtListener: docket/73383692)Judge Leon, who had separately warned Block “Don’t play possum with this court” when denying CREW’s preliminary injunction on June 23 on mootness grounds, had received the same administration’s oral representations as sufficient while Block’s filing denied those same courts the sworn accountability that would make them legally binding.

7. Post-Rescission Motion to Dismiss and Discovery Resistance

Acting AG Blanche formally rescinded the Anti-Weaponization Fund on August 2–3, 2026. The rescission was not the result of constitutional compliance: it was a political transaction — Blanche issued the order under pressure from Republican Senators John Cornyn and Thom Tillis, who were blocking his confirmation as permanent Attorney General, and announced his confirmation votes would proceed once the order was signed.

Within three weeks, Block filed an Amended Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (ECF 146, August 21, 2026), now citing the formal rescission as rendering the Floyd case moot — the same mootness argument he had made in June when no rescission existed, now freshly resupplied. The same day, plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel (ECF 143), indicating that DOJ had not been complying with its discovery obligations in the pending case.

Block’s team filed a Memorandum in Opposition to that Motion to Compel on August 26. A hearing on the Motion to Compel was held August 28, 2026 before Magistrate Judge Ivan D. Davis; the motion was argued and continued, with parties directed to meet and confer and an order to follow. The hearing on Block’s Amended Motion to Dismiss is scheduled for September 18, 2026 before Judge Brinkema.

SourcesNPR (August 3, 2026); CBS News (August 3, 2026); NBC News (August 3, 2026); court record Floyd v. Department of Justice, E.D. Va. 1:26-cv-01399, ECF entries 143–153 (CourtListener: docket/73383692)The pattern: Block’s team resisted discovery while the fund was nominally paused; the fund was rescinded for political reasons rather than in response to judicial authority; Block now advances mootness based on the same rescission while simultaneously opposing plaintiffs’ efforts to obtain discovery about what the fund was actually designed to do. A case that began with “I don’t know” has continued with resistance at every procedural stage at which facts about the fund’s design might be placed in the record.

Democratic Malice Assessment

Cumulative Designation: No DMA Designation (reassessment warranted — see note below)

Editor note: Actions 6 (sworn declaration refusal, June 19) and 7 (post-rescission MTD + discovery resistance, August 2026) are now documented above and may each qualify for scoring under the malice-evaluator framework. If both are scored, the qualifying action count reaches 4, which meets the minimum threshold for a cumulative DMA designation. This reassessment has not yet been completed; apply the malice-evaluator skill before updating the designation.

Scored Action 1: Strategic ambiguity litigation

Category: Rule of Law Destruction
DMS: 3 — Knowing Participation

Action: Strategic ambiguity litigation — filed court briefs arguing the Anti-Weaponization Fund is “simultaneously moot and premature” while DOJ simultaneously refused to rescind the founding documents that would make the mootness claim legally binding; made evasive representations to two federal judges (Leon: “I don’t know” why founding documents won’t be rescinded; Brinkema: “I don’t have the ability to speak directly to the attorney general”) — neither answer was made under penalty of perjury; Judge Brinkema found the gap “unbelievable” given the significance and issued an indefinite preliminary injunction

Key Evidence: NBC News reporting of both court hearings (June 4 and June 12, 2026); Judge Brinkema’s June 12 preliminary injunction order; Block’s signed court filings

Ideology vs. Malice Determination: Malice (scored). Block is not a private attorney representing a client he disagrees with — he is a government official whose fiduciary duty runs to the public interest, not only to the institutional DOJ client. His representations before two federal courts were not mere advocacy; they were assertions of fact (the fund is moot; the fund is not going forward) that were materially undermined by (a) his own admitted inability to explain why the founding documents remain in effect, and (b) his client-in-chief’s simultaneous public defense of the fund. A government attorney in court cannot tell a judge a program is dead while the president says it’s “a beautiful thing” and refuses to make any sworn statement confirming its cancellation. The ideological path was available: comply with court requests for formal rescission.

Scored Action 2: Delegitimization of Jan. 6 accountability plaintiffs in court filings

Category: Democratic Norm Destruction
DMS: 3 — Knowing Participation

Action: Delegitimization of Jan. 6 accountability plaintiffs in court filings — described Capitol officers and fired Jan. 6 prosecutors as “classic ideological objectors rather than genuinely injured parties” who would “undermine, rather than promote, ‘the core values of American democracy'” by challenging the fund; this characterization was applied to individuals who had personally experienced the January 6 attack and/or lost their positions for prosecuting it, while defending a fund that could directly compensate those who attacked them

Key Evidence: ABC News (June 6, 2026); Block’s filed briefs; Andrew Floyd’s public response as named plaintiff

Ideology vs. Malice Determination: Malice (scored). Calling Capitol officers and fired Jan. 6 prosecutors “ideological objectors” with no genuine injury — while defending a fund that could pay the people who assaulted those officers — is not standard litigation standing doctrine. It is an inverted claim: the victims of January 6 enforcement do not have standing to protect their accountability convictions, but the perpetrators can claim from the fund.

Block, coming from America First Legal, chose the formulation he authored; it did not arise from routine appellate boilerplate. | Why no cumulative DMA designation: Block has 2 qualifying actions, both DMS 3 (Knowing Participation). The framework requires a minimum of 3 qualifying actions for any cumulative designation. Block is accurately characterized as a supporting actor in a scheme whose architects — the officials who designed the IRS settlement, created the fund, and refused to sign sworn declarations — are the primary subjects for higher DMA scoring. Block’s conduct warrants documentation and accountability tracking but does not, on the current record, rise to the level of an independent “Active Subversion Campaign.”

What Is NOT Scored

Block’s work at America First Legal, including his congressional testimony on Biden-era immigration policy and his DHS work during Trump 1.0, are ideological legal activity and legitimate government service. His representation of the government in any given litigation is not automatically accountability-relevant — attorneys represent clients. What is scored here is the specific documented conduct of making representations to federal courts that his own evident inability to explain fundamentally undercuts, and the specific language in his briefs delegitimizing the accountability claims of Jan. 6 victims and prosecutors.

Assessment Basis

Block’s court appearances are documented by multiple mainstream news organizations present at both hearings. His filed briefs are publicly available court records. The judge’s findings are in the preliminary injunction. His background is documented by LinkedIn and the CBP website.

Legal Disclaimer

The Democratic Malice Assessment is an analytical framework applying defined criteria to documented public conduct. Designations are evaluative conclusions, not statements of criminal guilt. No DMS score constitutes a finding of criminal liability. The factual predicates are cited to primary sources; the evaluative conclusions are protected expression under New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.

Pattern Analysis

Block’s trajectory — Heritage Foundation intern → House Republican counsel → Trump DHS attorney → Stephen Miller’s America First Legal → Trump CBP Chief Counsel + DOJ Senior Counsel — is consistent with a career spent specifically within conservative legal movement infrastructure rather than the traditional government career attorney path. He returned to government service within months of Trump’s second inauguration, appointed to dual roles at CBP and DOJ, with his first major public action being the defense of the most legally contested initiative in the first year of the second Trump administration.

The America First Legal connection is significant context. AFL was specifically created to contest Biden-era democratic norms through litigation. Its founders and board members — Stephen Miller, Mark Meadows, Matthew Whitaker — are subjects of accountability profiles documenting conduct at the highest severity levels in this database. Block spent nearly five years working alongside those individuals as a senior attorney before returning to government.

His specific conduct in the anti-weaponization fund litigation does not make him equivalent to the fund’s architects. But his role as the government’s face in court — including the evasive representations to two federal judges, the formal refusal to provide sworn accountability for his client’s stated intentions, and the continued resistance to discovery after the fund’s administrative rescission — places him in the chain of documented conduct that ran from the fund’s creation through its political resolution.

The fund was not rescinded because a court compelled it; it was rescinded because Senate confirmation votes were on the line. Block’s ongoing litigation posture — moving to dismiss based on the rescission while opposing the discovery that could establish what the fund was actually designed to do — continues a pattern that began with the first “I don’t know.”

Severity Assessment

Factual correction requests: If you believe information in this profile is incorrect, please contact factcheck@patriot.university with your name (optional), the specific claim, and any supporting documentation. We review all submissions and correct verified errors promptly.

Accountability Status

Case citations (verified this session via CourtListener):

• Floyd v. Department of Justice, E.D. Va., Docket No. 1:26-cv-01399, Judge Leonie M. Brinkema; filed 2026-05-22; Block confirmed attorney of record. CourtListener
• Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. U.S. Department of Justice, D.D.C., Docket No. 1:26-cv-01789, Judge Richard J. Leon; filed 2026-05-22; Block confirmed attorney of record. CourtListener

Chronological log:

• June 12, 2026: Judge Brinkema issues indefinite preliminary injunction blocking the Anti-Weaponization Fund; DOJ given one week to produce sworn declarations from Blanche and Bessent under penalty of perjury
• June 19, 2026: Block files formal notice refusing to submit sworn declarations; argues the demand raises “serious separation of powers concerns” and that “Judges do not get to insert themselves into the department’s routine settlement authority” (CBS News, CNN, The Hill)
• June 23, 2026: Judge Leon (D.D.C.) denies CREW’s motion for preliminary injunction, ruling the case likely moot given DOJ’s public representations; issues direct warning to Block: “Don’t play possum with this court”
• June 25, 2026: Judge Brinkema rules Floyd case is NOT moot and will proceed; orders discovery
• July 13, 2026: Judge Kathleen Williams (S.D. Fla.) voids the original IRS settlement in a 56-page ruling; finds Trump and DOJ colluded to manipulate the judicial process; settlement declared null and barred from use as legal authority; Trump’s lawyer Alejandro Brito referred to Florida bar for disciplinary proceedings
• July 31, 2026: DOJ files Motion to Dismiss in CREW case (D.D.C.)
• August 2–3, 2026: Acting AG Blanche formally rescinds the Anti-Weaponization Fund order; rescission issued under political pressure from Senators Cornyn and Tillis, who were blocking Blanche’s confirmation as permanent AG; order states fund “is rescinded and shall have no force or effect”
• August 12, 2026: Judge Brinkema denies DOJ’s motion to vacate the initial scheduling order and stay discovery (ECF 140) — discovery proceeds in Floyd case
• August 21, 2026: Block files Amended Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (ECF 146), now citing the August rescission as rendering Floyd moot; hearing set for September 18; plaintiffs simultaneously file Motion to Compel (ECF 143), indicating DOJ not complying with discovery obligations
• August 26, 2026: DOJ files Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Compel (ECF 149)
• August 28, 2026: Motion to Compel hearing held before Magistrate Judge Ivan D. Davis; argued and continued; parties directed to meet and confer; order to follow (ECF 153)
• September 18, 2026: Hearing scheduled before Judge Brinkema on Block’s Amended Motion to Dismiss
• Congressional action: Bipartisan legislation (Fitzpatrick-Suozzi bill) introduced to block federal funds from being used through the fund
• DOJ status: Block remains in his dual roles (CBP Chief Counsel; DOJ Senior Counsel to the Associate AG)

Corrections

Correction [2026-08-28]: (legal claim) The article previously implied the fund’s operations ended due to a court-ordered injunction, but it was actually ended by an administrative rescission driven by Senate confirmation politics, not a judicial order.

Correction [2026-08-28]: The fund’s rescission is now described as resulting from political pressure rather than a court order, and it is clarified that the promised sworn declarations of termination were never actually obtained.