Q1 Political Lawsuits Over the Anti-Weaponization Fund

The Anti-Weaponization Fund is a $1.776 billion Trump administration program announced on May 18, 2026, to compensate people who claim they were unfairly targeted by prior federal administrations. It has never paid out a dollar. A federal judge in Virginia has indefinitely blocked it, the five-member oversight commission was never appointed, and Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told Congress the administration is “not moving forward with the fund, period.”¹

Here is what the program was supposed to do, how it was created, why it collapsed almost immediately under legal and political pressure, and what parts of the deal are still in effect.

What the Fund Was Designed to Do

Under the settlement agreement, the Treasury was directed to deposit $1.776 billion into a new fund within 60 days of the May 18 announcement. The money was to come from the federal Judgment Fund, a permanent Treasury appropriation Congress created to pay legal settlements and judgments against the government.² The DOJ said the figure represented a “projected valuation of future claimants’ claims.”³

A five-member commission appointed by the attorney general was to oversee the program, with one member chosen in consultation with congressional leadership. The president kept the power to remove any member without cause. The commission would set its own rules for accepting and evaluating claims, weighing evidence, actual damages, attorneys’ fees, and time spent in custody. It could issue apologies, grant monetary awards, or deny claims outright, and its decisions would be final: no appeal, no arbitration, no judicial review.⁴

Anyone could apply voluntarily, with no stated partisan requirements. Quarterly disbursement reports were to go to the attorney general but did not have to be made public. The fund was to stop processing claims by December 2028, with any remaining balance reverting to the government.⁵⁶

Trump, Eric Trump, and the Trump Organization were explicitly barred from receiving money from the fund, though the settlement did not prohibit entities related to Trump from applying. The named plaintiffs would instead receive a formal apology from the IRS.⁶²

Where the Money and the Deal Came From

The fund was the centerpiece of a settlement that ended a $10 billion lawsuit Trump filed against the IRS and Treasury Department in January 2026 in the Southern District of Florida. Trump, Eric Trump, and the Trump Organization alleged the agencies had failed to prevent a former IRS contractor from leaking Trump’s tax returns to news organizations.⁷

Legal experts widely considered the $10 billion damages claim weak, partly because the leak came from a contractor rather than a government employee.⁸ U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams was weighing whether a valid adversarial dispute even existed, given that the president controlled the very agencies he was suing, when the parties moved to dismiss on May 18. Judge Williams closed the case but noted that “there is no settlement of record,” because neither side actually filed the nine-page settlement with the court.³

In exchange for creating the fund, Trump agreed to drop the IRS case and two separate administrative claims tied to the 2022 Mar-a-Lago search and the Russia-collusion investigations. Trump said he was entering the settlement “for the benefit of the American people” and did not say whether his family would seek compensation.³

The Audit Immunity Addendum

A one-page addendum tucked into the settlement went well beyond the fund itself. The federal government agreed to be “FOREVER BARRED and PRECLUDED” from prosecuting or pursuing tax-related claims or examinations against Trump, his family, trusts, and businesses for all returns filed before the settlement date. In practice, this granted Trump permanent immunity from IRS audits of prior filings.⁶

Senator Ron Wyden called the provision a “violation of the law that prohibits interference by executive branch officials in IRS audits” and said future administrations should treat the directive as “completely invalid.”⁹ Brandon DeBot of the Tax Law Center at NYU Law argued the DOJ lacked authority to terminate IRS audits through a settlement, because the lawsuit concerned data leaks rather than tax liabilities. Some scholars argued the provision could violate Section 7217 of the tax code, which prohibits a president from directly or indirectly requesting the termination of an audit.¹⁰ This piece of the deal has not been blocked by any court and remains in effect.¹¹

Why the Fund Set Off a Bipartisan Revolt

Hours after the fund was announced, Treasury Department General Counsel Brian Morrissey resigned after only seven months in the role. He made no public statement explaining his departure, and Blanche said the next day he was unaware of the reason.¹²¹³ Senators Ron Wyden and Elizabeth Warren demanded to know whether the resignation was connected to the deal, calling the settlement “brazen corruption.”⁹

Congressional backlash came from both parties, and it was fierce enough to stall an unrelated Republican priority: Senate Majority Leader John Thune canceled a planned vote on a budget reconciliation bill funding ICE and the Border Patrol because he could not secure enough Republican votes while senators were in revolt over the fund.¹⁴

In a May 21 private meeting, Republican senators “blasted” and “yelled at” Blanche, accusing the administration of self-dealing. Senator Ted Cruz said at least half the Republican conference was prepared to vote with Democrats to restrict or kill the fund, calling it a “full-on revolt in the Senate.” Senator Chuck Grassley said the fund had to be “done away with.” Senator Roger Wicker called it “a nonstarter from the get-go.”¹⁵

Representatives Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) and Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.) introduced the Bipartisan Transparency for American Taxpayers Act on May 21, which would prohibit federal funds from being used to pay any claims submitted through the fund. Fitzpatrick said the goal was to “kill” the program.¹⁶ Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Democrats would force votes to “ban the slush fund permanently and forever.”¹⁵

The January 6 Flashpoint

A central grievance was the prospect that people convicted of crimes during the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack could seek taxpayer-funded compensation. Although no application process ever opened, several defendants publicly signaled their intent. Pamela Hemphill, who had rejected a presidential pardon, drafted a $5 million claim. Former Michigan fake elector Meshawn Maddock said she and her husband “absolutely” planned to file. A former attorney and January 6 defendant named David Johnston began publicly offering to help other defendants prepare applications for a 10% fee, capped at $5,000 per award.¹⁷

Not all defendants welcomed the idea. Jason Riddle, another January 6 defendant who rejected his pardon, called it “ridiculous” for rioters to seek compensation, saying what they did was “criminal behavior.”¹⁷

The Lawsuits That Blocked It

Capitol Police Officers Sue

On May 20, former Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn and Metropolitan Police officer Daniel Hodges filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Their 29-page complaint, filed by the Public Integrity Project, raised three counts: that the DOJ lacked authority to create a new federal commission to distribute funds without congressional action; that the Judgment Fund could not legally be tapped without actual or imminent litigation; and that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the United States from paying debts incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion. The officers alleged the fund endangered them personally by rewarding past violence and encouraging future attacks on law enforcement.¹⁸

Democracy Forward’s Challenge

On May 22, Democracy Forward filed a broader challenge in the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of five plaintiffs: Andrew Floyd, a career federal prosecutor fired by Attorney General Pam Bondi in June 2025 after working on January 6 cases; Jonathan Caravello, a California professor acquitted of assault charges following a 2025 protest incident; the city of New Haven, Connecticut; the National Abortion Federation; and the watchdog group Common Cause.¹⁹

The suit alleged the fund violated separation of powers, equal protection, the First Amendment, and the Administrative Procedure Act. Plaintiffs argued it was “politically discriminatory,” available only to people claiming they were targeted by Democratic administrations while excluding those harmed by the current one. Democracy Forward CEO Skye Perryman put the core argument plainly: “There’s literally no legal authority for the fund. Congress hasn’t authorized the fund.”¹⁹ Senators Cory Booker and Bill Cassidy filed a bipartisan amicus brief calling the underlying lawsuit a “collusive settlement” and a “threat to our constitutional order.”²⁰

Former Federal Judges Reopen the Florida Case

On May 27, a bipartisan coalition of 35 former federal judges, including J. Michael Luttig, Nancy Gertner, and Shira Scheindlin, asked Judge Williams to reopen the dismissed Florida lawsuit, alleging the settlement was “a product of collusion and is itself a fraud on the Court.” Their 24-page filing cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, which allows a court to set aside a judgment obtained through fraud.²¹²² The DOJ called the motion “frivolous.”

Two days later, Judge Williams reopened the case. She said she intended to investigate “grievous allegations” that the settlement was “premised on deception” and ordered Trump’s attorneys to respond by June 12 regarding the allegations of collusion and whether the court had been “the victim of a fraud.”²³

The Injunction That Stopped the Fund

Also on May 29, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in the Eastern District of Virginia issued a temporary order blocking the DOJ from operating the fund, processing claims, or disbursing any money. The DOJ said it “disagrees strongly” with the ruling but would comply.²⁴ Facing the order and congressional pressure, Blanche testified on June 2 that “we’re not moving forward with the fund, period,” but refused to put that commitment in writing.¹

Judge Brinkema found verbal assurances insufficient. At a June 12 hearing she extended the injunction indefinitely, rejecting the administration’s argument that the case was moot. She pointed to recent statements from Trump indicating a desire to move forward and noted that the original order creating the fund had never been formally rescinded. She concluded the fund violated separation of powers by trampling Congress’s authority over spending and found the plaintiffs had shown a “likelihood of success on the merits.”²⁵²⁶

Judge Brinkema gave the administration one week to provide sworn declarations from both Blanche and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, under penalty of perjury, confirming the fund will never go forward. If the declarations are filed, she indicated she would lift the injunction. If not, the litigation will continue to determine whether the fund should be declared unlawful.¹¹

Where Things Stand

No money has been paid out from the Anti-Weaponization Fund. The five-member commission was never appointed, no eligibility criteria were ever set, and no claims were ever accepted.²⁴ Judge Brinkema’s indefinite injunction remains in place. In Florida, Judge Williams has reopened the original Trump v. IRS lawsuit to investigate fraud-on-the-court allegations, with Trump’s legal team ordered to respond to questions about collusion and deception.

The audit immunity provision shielding Trump, his family, and his businesses from IRS examinations on prior tax filings has not been blocked by any court and remains in effect.¹¹

1
BBC News. Trump Administration Abandons $1.8 Billion Anti-Weaponisation Fund
2
Forbes. Trump Gets $1.8B Payday With Anti-Weaponization Fund as He Drops IRS Case
3
NBC News. Trump Voluntarily Drops $10 Billion Lawsuit Against IRS Over Leaked Tax Records
4
U.S. Department of Justice. Settlement Agreement
5
U.S. Department of Justice. Justice Department Announces Anti-Weaponization Fund
6
CNN. Donald Trump IRS Settlement Annotated
7
Thomson Reuters. Trump’s $10B IRS Suit Over Tax Data Leaks Raises Legal Issues
8
NPR. Trump IRS Lawsuit Settlement
9
Tax Notes. Trump’s IRS Audit Deal Denounced as Threat to Law and Code
10
BBC News. Trump IRS Audit Immunity Provision
11
Forbes. Judge Keeps Blocking Trump’s $1.8 Billion Fund Until DOJ Can Prove It’s Dead
12
New York Times. Anti-Weaponization Fund Brian Morrissey Treasury
13
Politico. Morrissey Treasury Anti-Weaponization IRS
14
Courthouse News Service. Backlash to Trump Weaponization Fund Engulfs Republicans
15
NBC News. Trump Administration Appears to Back Down on $1.8 Billion Anti-Weaponization Fund
16
Fitzpatrick House. Fitzpatrick, Suozzi Introduce Bipartisan Bill to Stop Taxpayer Dollars From Funding DOJ’s Anti-Weaponization Fund
17
Courthouse News Service. Capitol Rioters Clamor for Payouts From Trump’s New Anti-Weaponization Fund Despite Backlash
18
Courthouse News Service. Officers Who Defended U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 Sue to Block Anti-Weaponization Fund
19
NBC News. Jan. 6 Prosecutor, Trump Administration Targets Sue Over Weaponization Fund
20
InsiderNJ. Booker Leads Bipartisan Amicus Brief Challenging Trump’s $1.7 Billion Anti-Weaponization Fund as an Unconstitutional End-Run Around Congress
21
CBS News. Dozens of Ex-Judges Push Look Into Trump Anti-Weaponization Fund Fraud on the Court
22
USA Today. Former Federal Judges Push to Reopen Trump IRS Weaponization Fund Case
23
The Guardian. Trump IRS Suit Reopened
24
PBS NewsHour. Judge Temporarily Blocks Payouts From Trump’s $1.8B Anti-Weaponization Settlement Fund
25
Roll Call. Court Extends Block on Anti-Weaponization Fund
26
CNN. Anti-Weaponization Fund Ruling