The Department of Justice (DOJ) pressed pause on the Trump administration’s “anti-weaponization” fund on Monday, giving Senate Republicans runway to hammer through a massive immigration enforcement funding package in the process.

The DOJ announced on X that it would abide by a Virginia federal court’s order to not move forward with the fund. It comes as Republicans in the upper chamber punted their plan to advance a $72 billion immigration enforcement package over deep concerns about who could access the flow of taxpayer dollars from the nearly $2 billion fund.

The DOJ said in a statement that it “disagrees strongly with the decision on the Anti-Weaponization Fund” by the Virginia district court, “wherein the Court stated that, under no circumstances, may the Department of Justice proceed with the Anti-Weaponization Fund recently established in order to make up for the tremendous abuse, harm, and hate unfairly shown to so many people.”

SENATE GOP ERUPTS OVER TRUMP DOJ ‘ANTI-WEAPONIZATION’ FUND, PUNTS ICE, BORDER PATROL FUNDING

“This fund was open to anybody who was so weaponized, targeted, or persecuted, whether they were Democrat, Republican, Conservative, Independent, or otherwise,” the agency said. “The Department will abide by the Court’s ruling.”

For the time being, that could ease Republicans’ concerns over whether those convicted of assaulting police officers on Jan. 6, 2021, could access the money. And it will likely allow the GOP to restart the budget reconciliation process with that political pressure point now sidelined.

It comes as Democrats are gearing up for a deluge of bills and amendments that likely could have passed had the administration not halted the fund. But still, it’s unclear if it means the fund has totally been nixed, or if it’s just a temporary pause.

GOP’S PRIMED FOR PRIMARY SEASON PAYBACK ON TRUMP’S MOST AMBITIOUS, CONTROVERSIAL POLICY

When asked if he thought Democratic amendments and bills would survive, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said that the administration would have to be crystal clear about what happens next.

“If the administration effectively shuts it down, and makes that very, very clear, and that, to me, should answer the question,” Thune said.

Whether the fund has permanently come to an end is still an open question. Fox News Digital was referred to the DOJ by the White House for comment, and the DOJ did not immediately respond. 

Given that grey area, Senate Democrats plan to move full-steam ahead with their slate of legislation and amendments geared toward completely terminating the “anti-weaponization” fund. 

CONGRESS BARRELS TOWARD DEADLINE PILE-UP AS GOP DIVISIONS THREATEN TRUMP AGENDA

“If Trump and Republicans are truly abandoning this corrupt scheme, they should have zero problem banning it in law,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said on X. “This week, Senate Democrats will push legislation to ban this slush fund and ensure no president can ever do this again. Trump’s word is nowhere near enough.”

Schumer had already primed Democrats to take advantage of the brewing dissent within the GOP with an aggressive legislative strategy during the forthcoming “vote-a-rama,” where both sides of the aisle will get a near unlimited number of amendments to vote on for the immigration package. 

Sen. Jacky Rosen, D-Nev., already plans to introduce three bills that would redirect the funding to address growing affordability concerns in the country. 

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“My bills will redirect the $1.8 BILLION slush fund money to SNAP, Medicaid, and law enforcement programs like those that help our local police departments hire more officers,” Rosen said on X. 

“You work hard for your money, and I’ll be damned if I let Donald Trump or anyone else use it for a slush fund for their friends. Let’s see if Washington Republicans agree,” she continued. 

EXCLUSIVE: NEW YORK CITY — A Brooklyn landlord says he has been trapped in a nearly decade-long legal nightmare that has cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars in unpaid rent and legal fees, while New York courts repeatedly delay resolution as his tenant continues living in the apartment without making direct rent payments to the landlord.

Thomas Diana, who owns a small eight-unit building in Park Slope, told Fox News Digital he has spent the last nine years trying to remove a woman who originally moved into one of his apartments as a live-in companion for an elderly, disabled tenant.

Court records show the woman moved into the apartment in 2014 after responding to a Craigslist advertisement seeking a live-in companion for the tenant, who later died in 2016.

What followed was nearly a decade of litigation spanning multiple courts and proceedings. After the elderly tenant’s death, disputes arose over the woman’s tenancy status, rent obligations and whether the apartment remained subject to New York rent-stabilization laws as Diana sought unpaid rent and possession of the apartment.

SQUATTER TURNS COUPLE’S DREAM HOME PURCHASE INTO NIGHTMARE

“This has gone on for nine years. Nothing about this is justice,” Diana told Fox News Digital. “Every time the case gets close to resolution, there’s another delay, another lawyer change, another new story.”

Diana says the tenant has changed lawyers at least eight times in the ongoing legal saga, which Diana refers to as a “9-year squatter situation,” although the case technically centers around a dispute over rent stabilization laws with the two sides disputing nearly every aspect of the case.

“It drained my daughter’s college fund,” Diana told Fox News Digital inside his home while wearing a now-outdated T-shirt that says, “Stuck with 8-year-squatter.”

“Now we’re borrowing money to pay for college while this just keeps dragging on. It gets pretty stressful. People think eviction cases are like TV where it takes two weeks. In New York it can take years, and this one has turned into almost a decade.”

IS MAMDANI’S SOCIALIST PUSH FOR RENT CONTROLS ABOUT TO WRECK THE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING MARKET?

Attorneys for the tenant strongly dispute Diana’s characterization of the case, and the tenant at one point sued Diana, claiming the apartment had been improperly removed from rent stabilization protections.

“Mr. Diana’s distortion of the facts in this case is a sad attempt to harass our client out of her rent-stabilized apartment, and he will not be successful,” Casey Gilfoil, an attorney with Brooklyn Legal Services, told Fox News Digital.

Gilfoil said a judge has already ruled Diana improperly removed the apartment from rent stabilization and said the remaining issue before the court is determining the legal rent and any potential damages.

Brooklyn Legal Services also says the tenant has money set aside in escrow pending the court’s final ruling.

Diana pushed back, saying the court did not find that he committed fraud and that he followed the guidance he says he received from New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal when the apartment was deregulated years before the tenant sued. “The judge ruled there was no fraud,” Diana told Fox News Digital. “She said I incorrectly destabilized the apartment. I did it as they told me to.”

Diana also disputed Brooklyn Legal Services’ claim that the tenant has years of rent saved in escrow, saying the numbers do not add up and that, based on court communications regarding her employment history, it is unlikely she has accumulated “anywhere near” $300,000.

Diana says the occupant’s lawsuit relied on what he describes as a series of shifting and contradictory claims, including allegations that the original elderly tenant was not disabled, that the occupant had been on the lease and that the apartment was illegally deregulated.

During depositions, Diana said his attorney challenged those claims with emails, photographs, rent records and testimony. He contends the allegations did not withstand scrutiny during questioning.

“She got destroyed on all 18 claims,” Diana said. “And once those fell apart, they just made up new ones.”

WASHINGTON POST BLASTS RENT CONTROL AS ‘FAILED POLICY’ THAT LEAVES RENTERS ‘WORSE OFF’ THAN BEFORE

Court stipulations required the occupant to make monthly use-and-occupancy payments, similar to interim rent payments, of roughly $835 per month at one point, but Diana says those payments stopped years ago. He estimates total unpaid rent now ranges between $275,000 and $325,000.

In her deposition, the occupant testified she has not worked full time in years and has limited income, a factor Diana says the courts have effectively allowed to justify continued nonpayment.

Diana, who started a GoFundMe page to help with his financial struggles, says the prolonged case has left him struggling to maintain his building and cover basic expenses, including tuition for his children.

“One apartment out of eight not paying rent wipes out any profit,” Diana said. “Judges talk in terms of months. They don’t talk about what $300,000 actually does to a family.”

He also pointed to an overall problem with the system and described repeated housing court inspections that he says resulted in excessive and duplicative violations, which further delayed proceedings and increased costs.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“They’ll cite you for a paint drip from 20 years ago and call you a slumlord,” Diana said. “Meanwhile, the tenant hasn’t paid rent in nearly a decade.”

Diana says his case highlights what he views as a systemic imbalance in New York’s housing courts that allows bad-faith actors to exploit tenant protections indefinitely.

“They tell you to sell your building. They tell you to accept a buyout, to pay the person who owes you hundreds of thousands of dollars,” he said. “That’s not justice. That’s legalized theft.”

In April, the case was adjourned again until this summer, essentially guaranteeing that the saga will extend into its 10th year.

“This court case has become a Twilight Zone Marathon,” Diana said.