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.

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

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."

"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."

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

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.

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.