79Trust
Verified
🔍 Web Verified
AcynonBluesky1d ago
Perryman: it’s quite remarkable that you have a DOJ that is willing to make statements to a court in its briefing that it’s not willing to swear to.
If you’re making these representations as an officer of the court, then why is it too much to ask that you make them under penalty of perjury?
Trust Metrics
85
75
70
80
Accuracy85%
Framing75%
Context70%
Tone80%
Analysis Summary
A federal judge asked the DOJ to file a sworn declaration stating that Trump's $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund is dead, but the DOJ refused — arguing the request violates separation of powers — creating a situation where the administration made unsworn statements in court filings about a policy it won't formally verify under oath. This matters because judges typically expect government attorneys to stand behind their representations, and refusing to swear to them while still making them raises questions about the administration's confidence in its own legal position.
Claims Analysis (2)
“The DOJ made statements to a court in its briefing that it is not willing to swear to”
Multiple sources confirm the DOJ refused to submit a sworn declaration on the anti-weaponization fund status despite a judge's request.
“A judge requested the DOJ make representations under penalty of perjury”
Judge Leonie Brinkema explicitly requested a sworn declaration under penalty of perjury regarding the fund's status.
Was this analysis helpful?
Try ClearFeed free →