A federal judge is preparing to let lawsuits proceed against the Trump administration's so-called "Anti-Weaponization Fund," after reports this week that the $1.8 billion vehicle remains active.

MS NOW legal reporter Fallon Gallagher revealed Thursday that Trump officials have not "forgotten" about the fund and are "still fighting to keep it alive."

Politico reported Friday that U.S. District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema said public statements from the Trump administration signaled to her that both President Donald Trump and Attorney General Todd Blanche are working to keep the fund alive despite earlier promises that it had been shelved.

The fund's purpose is to give money to people who claim they were somehow wronged by the government, and according to the judge, it appears those goals could still be fully carried out. That could include, as Politico described, "paying people directly from the Treasury Department's Judgment Fund, an open-ended source of money tapped by the Justice Department for many settlements."

"That's being used, apparently, to do exactly what the specific fund in this case was supposed to be doing," Brinkema told the courtroom during a Friday hearing. "These issues that underlie case are still alive and kicking, in my view."

The judge said the administration's use of the fund to hand money to Jan. 6 attackers "undermined arguments" that a lawsuit filed in May over the "Anti-Weaponization Fund" had become moot. A declaration of mootness would end the litigation; keeping it alive allows the plaintiffs to pursue internal records and sworn testimony from senior officials.

"That entity is gone, but is a functional equivalent of that going on…?" Brinkema asked. "Actions speak louder than words."

She also noted that an agreement the Justice Department entered into with Trump over one of his Florida lawsuits directly violates statutes banning a president from "directly indirectly" controlling IRS audits. The prohibition dates to the Nixon era: former President Richard Nixon used the IRS to obtain information about people on his "enemies list" and demanded audits and investigations of those named. The laws were changed afterward to bar presidential involvement. Trump's deal with the DOJ would have guaranteed that neither he nor anyone in his family would ever be audited by the IRS again.

The Justice Department has repeatedly promised the judge that the fund is "moot" and that there is little evidence to the contrary. The government has also resisted handing over internal documents or having senior officials, including Blanche, answer questions under oath. Department attorney Andrew Block called the plaintiffs' requests a "fishing expedition" and said they could involve confidential government communications.

When Brinkema asked whether the full Trump contract is currently being enforced, Block said, "I'm not prepared to say that."

"Those present-tense statements do not meet the heavy burden of demonstrating that this case is moot," said Pooja Boisture, a lawyer with Democracy Forward representing the coalition of groups that brought the suit. She argued that Blanche's promises fall short of the definitive guarantee the plaintiffs have requested.

The judge's refusal to dismiss the lawsuit keeps the matter alive, meaning the Justice Department must turn over records related to the fund and Blanche and other senior officials are expected to answer questions about it under oath. Block claimed the demand raises a slew of "privilege issues."

The government has 30 days to hand over the records. That deadline sets the case's next checkpoint, with the privilege dispute and the prospect of sworn testimony from Blanche the key factors to watch as the fight over the fund moves forward.