A federal judge on Monday denounced a lawsuit filed by President Donald Trump against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as an improper attempt to “manipulate” the judicial process to legitimize a controversial settlement. U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams ruled that the case was brought for an “improper purpose” to provide a veneer of judicial legitimacy to a deal that had “no viable basis in law or fact.”
The 56-page decision concluded that President Trump, along with his two oldest sons, acted in “bad faith.” Judge Williams stated that because the lawsuit was filed by the president against a federal agency he controlled, there was never a true “case or controversy” or “adverseness” between the parties, describing the lead plaintiff and the government as “one, a fully realized unitary interest.”
The ‘Anti-Weaponization’ Fund and Tax Immunity
The lawsuit, which sought $10 billion, originated in January after President Trump alleged the IRS failed to prevent a government contractor from leaking more than two decades of his tax records to the press. The matter was privately settled out of court in May.
According to court documents and the judge’s ruling, the settlement included two primary and highly controversial components:
- The Anti-Weaponization Fund: A proposal to establish a pool of taxpayer money—initially set at $1.776 billion—to compensate individuals who alleged the federal government had been “weaponized” against them.
- Tax Immunity: A provision permanently barring the IRS from pursuing tax claims, audits, or regulatory enforcement actions against President Trump, his oldest sons, his company, or affiliated family entities for returns filed up to the date of the settlement.
Following widespread backlash from Congress and legal challenges, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche later announced that the Department of Justice was “not moving forward” with the Anti-Weaponization Fund.
For more on this story, see Supreme Court Declines Appeal, Leaving Trump’s $5 Million Sex Abuse Verdict.
Legal Violations and Professional Penalties
Judge Williams criticized the Justice Department for “abdicating its responsibility to zealously defend the interests of the United States” and disregarding DOJ policies. She specifically noted that the provision barring tax audits “directly contravenes” federal law prohibiting the executive branch from influencing taxpayer investigations. Furthermore, she stated that the potential conferral of millions in tax relief could violate the Constitution’s ban on increasing a president’s compensation during their term.
The ruling imposes several professional and legal sanctions:
- Lawyer Referrals: Alejandro Brito, one of the president’s lawyers, was referred to the Florida Bar for potential disciplinary action. The judge also limited the ability of lawyer Daniel Epstein to practice in the Southern District of Florida.
- Bar Notifications: Copies of the order were sent to the New York State Bar Association and the District of Columbia Bar regarding acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward.
- Evidentiary Bar: The judge barred President Trump, the DOJ, and the IRS from using the purported settlement agreement as evidence of a settlement in any future judicial, administrative, or regulatory proceedings.
Context and Current Status
While Judge Williams did not explicitly void the private agreement shielding the president from tax scrutiny, stating that the validity of a private agreement was “not before this court,” she stripped the deal of any official judicial standing.
A spokesperson for President Trump’s legal team responded by stating the IRS wrongly allowed a “politically-motivated employee” to leak private information to news outlets and that the president continues to hold those who “wrong America and Americans accountable.”
Find more reporting in our News section.