{"id":30,"date":"2026-05-24T16:40:35","date_gmt":"2026-05-24T16:40:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/?p=30"},"modified":"2026-05-24T16:40:35","modified_gmt":"2026-05-24T16:40:35","slug":"the-president-who-sued-himself","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/?p=30","title":{"rendered":"The President Who Sued Himself"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Donald J. Trump is famously the most litigious of all American presidents. From his years as a New York real estate mogul through both terms in the White House, he has used litigation not merely as a legal tool, but as a political weapon. In 2023, a federal judge fined him and his attorney, Alina Habba, nearly $1 million, for filing a \u201ccompletely frivolous\u201d lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and 30 other defendants. The judge described Trump as \u201ca prolific and sophisticated litigant who is repeatedly using the courts to seek revenge on political adversaries.\u201d<\/p>\n

Read more Pressure Without Pause: Iraq\u2019s Role in the Postwar Iran Settlement<\/a><\/p>\n

During his second term alone, the Litigator-in-Chief has initiated lawsuits, or continued pursuing previously-filed lawsuits, against a lengthy roster of people and institutions he regards as political or personal adversaries. The targets have included an Iowa newspaper and pollster who showed him trailing in the state; CBS, for editing an interview with Kamala Harris; Bob Woodward, for publishing interviews with him in an audiobook; the Wall Street Journal, for alleging that he submitted a note for Jeffrey Epstein\u2019s 50th birthday book with a drawing of a naked female; the BBC, for rearranging portions of his Jan. 6 speech in a documentary; and the Pulitzer Prize board, for declining to rescind a 2018 award to the New York Times and the Washington Post in relation to their reporting on Russian interference in the 2016 election. He has also strong-armed Twitter (now X), Meta, and YouTube into paying (after he returned to the presidency) a combined $60 million to settle his lawsuits stemming from the suspension of his social media accounts in the aftermath of the 2020 election.<\/p>\n

Against that backdrop, perhaps it should come as no surprise that one of the most breathtakingly corrupt episodes of Trump\u2019s second term began with a lawsuit he filed against the very government he now controls. On Jan. 29, 2026, Trump\u2014joined by his two eldest sons and the Trump Organization\u2014 against the IRS and the Treasury Department. They claimed that a former IRS contractor, Charles Littlejohn, had illegally disclosed Trump\u2019s tax return information to the New York Timesand other media outlets. Trump said any money he makes off of this suit would go to charity.<\/p>\n

As it turns out, his political allies are the \u201ccharity,\u201d and American taxpayers are the donors.<\/p>\n

Earlier this week, the Justice Department announced that Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche had established a $1.776 billion dollar fund, ostensibly as part of a settlement agreement in Trump v. IRS<\/em>. The fund\u2014drawn entirely from the federal Judgment Fund, a permanent congressional appropriation used to pay court settlements against the United States\u2014will be used to dispense taxpayer money to people who suffered from purported Democratic \u201cweaponization\u201d and \u201clawfare.\u201d While Trump is not expected to receive compensation from the fund himself, money will be doled out by a five-member board he effectively controls, operating under procedures that need not be disclosed, with the identities of recipients potentially kept secret.<\/p>\n

The name Trump chose for this instrument of partisan self-dealing\u2014conjured by a president suing his own government and settling with himself, a product of the politicized use of the legal system he claims to deplore\u2014is \u201cThe Anti-Weaponization Fund.\u201d<\/p>\n

What follows is a broad-strokes primer on Trump\u2019s settlement agreement, the legal framework for the so-called \u201cAnti-Weaponization Fund,\u201d and what\u2014if anything\u2014can be done to challenge it. And we also discuss Blanche\u2019s order\u2014one day later\u2014purporting to extend vast immunity from government liability to Trump and his family.<\/p>\n

What\u2019s the Backstory?<\/strong><\/p>\n

While working at the IRS in 2019 and 2020, Littlejohn stole tax return information associated with thousands of wealthy or high-profile Americans, including the Trump family, which he then leaked to the New York Times and ProPublica. Both media outlets used that information to publish stories about the tax returns of Trump and others. Littlejohn was later prosecuted in connection with the unauthorized disclosures and sentenced to five years in federal prison.<\/p>\n

Trump\u2019s civil suit against the IRS had at least a scintilla of merit, but it also had serious weaknesses that almost certainly would have led to its dismissal.<\/p>\n

For one thing, the complaint sought a . More crucially, however, Trump filed his suit past the two-year statute of limitations, which begins to run when a plaintiff discovers that the IRS disclosed his tax information without authorization. claims that Trump didn\u2019t discover the breach until Jan. 29, 2024, when the IRS sent a letter notifying him that Littlejohn had been charged with disclosing his returns. But Littlejohn\u2019s role in leaking Trump\u2019s returns was publicly known well before that date. Indeed, when Littlejohn pleaded guilty in federal court in October 2023, one of Trump\u2019s own attorneys reportedly addressed the court on behalf of her client, describing the leak as an \u201cegregious breach by an agent of the IRS…for political gain.\u201d<\/p>\n

It is difficult to claim ignorance of a disclosure that your own lawyer publicly condemned on the record in federal court.<\/p>\n

Nor was the statute of limitations the only problem. In , the Justice Department has argued\u2014\u2014that the IRS bore no responsibility for the leak because Littlejohn was a contractor rather than a federal employee. The IRS did settle a similar case brought by hedge fund billionaire Ken Griffin, but Griffin received only a formal apology, no money.<\/p>\n

All of which is to say that the government, in any normal administration, could have walked into court and won this case.<\/p>\n

But there was nothing normal about this lawsuit, because the government Trump was suing is his. The IRS and the Treasury Department are executive agencies that report to him. He appoints and removes their leaders. And the Justice Department lawyers assigned to defend those agencies serve at the pleasure of the president. Pursuant to that Trump issued one month after returning to office, they are prohibited from advancing any legal position on behalf of the United States that \u201ccontravenes the President or the Attorney General’s opinion on a matter of law.\u201d<\/p>\n

Trump, in short, was essentially suing himself, and the lawyers tasked with defending the other side worked for him.<\/p>\n

The judge overseeing Trump\u2019s suit, Kathleen Williams of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, an Obama appointee, was troubled by this. In April, after the parties to engage in settlement discussions, Williams declined to simply grant the motion. Instead, she over the case at all.<\/p>\n

At the heart of her concern was whether the case involved a genuine dispute between the parties. Article III of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to actual \u201ccases or controversies.\u201d A key element of this \u201ccase or controversy\u201d requirement is adverseness, meaning a real dispute between two parties with opposing interests. If the parties aren\u2019t sufficiently adverse, a federal court has no power to hear the case.<\/p>\n

In her April order, Judge Williams expressed doubts about whether Trump\u2019s case against his own government could satisfy the \u201ccase or controversy\u201d requirement. To that end, she cited the executive order requiring Justice Department attorneys to adhere to the president\u2019s opinion on matters of law. And she pointed to Trump\u2019s own public remarks about the suit. Two days after filing the complaint, he had told a reporter: \u201cI\u2019m supposed to work out a settlement with myself.\u201d<\/p>\n

Williams ordered both Trump’s personal lawyers and the Justice Department to brief the threshold question of whether a genuine case or controversy even existed, and scheduled a hearing for May 27. Recognizing that neither party to the litigation could be relied upon to argue against its own interests, she also appointed a to assist the court in analyzing the jurisdictional question. The amici curiae<\/em> included attorneys from the elite firms Selendy Gay, Debevoise & Plimpton (including former U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of New York John Gleeson), and Munger Tolles & Olson, including former Solicitor General Donald Verrilli.<\/p>\n

In a brief , the amici <\/em>stopped short of recommending outright dismissal of the case, noting that the factual record was not yet fully developed. But they argued that the constitutional requirement of adverseness is absent when one party effectively controls the other, and they catalogued the ways in which Trump controlled the defendant agencies and the Justice Department. The amici<\/em> also suggested that the court should obtain more information before allowing the case to proceed\u2014including whether the ongoing settlement negotiations were being conducted at arms length and whether any steps had been taken to insulate the Justice Department lawyers assigned to the case from presidential direction.<\/p>\n

The parties\u2019 briefs on the jurisdictional question were due May 20. They never filed them. On May 14\u2014the same day the amici <\/em>submitted their brief to the court\u2014ABC News reported that Trump was poised to drop his suit against the IRS in exchange for the creation of a $1.7 billion dollar fund to compensate allies who claim they were wrongfully targeted by the Biden administration.<\/p>\n

That turned out to be right. Just days later, on May 18, the Justice Department issued a press release announcing that Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche had established a so-called \u201cAnti-Weaponization Fund\u201d as a part of a settlement agreement in Trump v. IRS<\/em>. According to the press release, the $1.776 billion fund would be used to compensate people who \u201csuffered weaponization and lawfare.\u201d The same day, Trump\u2019s personal attorney filed a to drop his case against the IRS.<\/p>\n

Was this the plan all along? Or was Trump actually planning to pursue his collusive lawsuit against the IRS, and hastily switched gears to craft a \u201csettlement\u201d benefiting third-party cronies only when the judge had questions? At this point, we do not know.<\/p>\n

What Are the Terms of the Settlement?<\/strong><\/p>\n

The text of the settlement agreement, signed by Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward on May 18 and released later that day, provides more detail. It states that Trump agreed to drop not only his suit against the IRS but also his no less alarming\u00a0administrative claims against the Justice Department in which he sought approximately $230 million in compensation over grievances related to the search at Mar-a-Lago and the Russia investigation. In exchange, the Trumps will receive a formal apology from the United States government, though he and his co-plaintiffs \u201cwill not receive any monetary payment or damages of any kind.\u201d<\/p>\n

What the Trumps get in lieu of a direct payout for themselves is the creation of a nearly $2 billion \u201cAnti-Weaponization\u201d fund\u2014one that will undoubtedly be used to enrich their political allies. Indeed, earlier this year former national security advisor Michael Flynn and former Trump campaign advisor Carter Page each received \u201csettlements\u201d over $1 million based on claims against which the government had strong defenses.<\/p>\n

To be sure, the Justice Department\u2019s press release insists that \u201cthere are no partisan requirements\u201d for filing a claim. But the settlement document itself is hardly subtle about who the intended beneficiaries are. It states that the purpose of the fund is to compensate \u201cothers who, like Plaintiffs, state that they incurred harm from similar Lawfare and Weaponization.\u201d It goes on to describe those terms in explicitly partisan language, defining \u201cLawfare\u201d and \u201cWeaponization\u201das \u201cthe sustained use of the levers of government power by Democrat elected officials, political and career federal employees, contractors, and agents in order to target individuals, groups, and entities for improper and unlawful political, personal, and\/or ideological reasons.\u201d<\/p>\n

Tellingly, at a (previously scheduled) May 19 hearing of the Senate Appropriations Committee\u2019s Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, Blanche cited Hunter Biden as an example of a Democrat who could, in theory, seek relief. As Blanche knows full well, Hunter Biden was prosecuted under a Democratic <\/em>administration. Later that day, Vice President J.D. Vance also cited Hunter Biden as a possible claimant. Such trolling does nothing to allay concerns of partisanship.<\/p>\n

The settlement document itself offers a clearer picture of the intended constituency. It identifies three canonical examples of \u201cLawfare\u201d and \u201cWeaponization\u201d that the fund is established to redress: the Biden administration’s use of the FACE Act to prosecute anti-abortion activists; the Biden administration\u2019s \u201cwrongful labeling of certain parents as domestic terrorists\u201d; and the IRS\u2019s \u201ctargeting of groups based on improper ideological criteria.\u201d<\/p>\n

Conspicuously absent from that list\u2014but widely understood to be among the fund\u2019s intended beneficiaries\u2014are the Jan. 6 defendants whom Trump pardoned upon returning to office.<\/p>\n

Trump has been talking about compensating Jan. 6 attackers since at least March 2025, when he was asked about it in a Newsmax interview. \u201cWell, there\u2019s talk about that,\u201d he said. \u201cA lot of the people in government really like that group of people. They were patriots as far as I was concerned.\u201d Ed Martin, the current Department of Justice pardon attorney who previously headed its weaponization working group, has endorsed \u201creparations\u201d for Jan. 6 defendants, some of whom he represented before joining the administration.<\/p>\n

The prospect of such payments has already been put to disturbing use. In February, Jan. 6 rioter Andrew Paul Johnson was\u00a0convicted in Florida state court of child molestation and exposing himself to children. According to\u00a0a police report, he tried to keep one victim silent by telling him that he was pardoned and stood to receive $10 million for being a \u201cjan 6\u2019er,\u201d and would be putting the victim in his will.<\/p>\n

Who, then, is responsible for deciding whether cop-assaulting rioters qualify as victims of weaponization? The agreement provides that the fund will be overseen by a five-member board appointed by the attorney general\u2014at least for now, that\u2019s Blanche, Trump\u2019s former criminal defense attorney, who recently declared that he would say \u201cI love you, sir,\u201d if the president fired him.<\/p>\n

For reasons left unexplained, the agreement specifies that one of the five board members will be selected \u201cin consultation with congressional leadership.\u201d In other contexts, courts have interpreted that language as not requiring actual approval from anyone.<\/p>\n

All five members will serve at the pleasure of the president, who \u201ccan remove any member without cause.\u201d That removal authority will, of course, rest with the same president who sued the government he controls, then settled with it, thereby producing the fund in the first place.<\/p>\n

Beyond dispensing monetary awards, the board will also be empowered to issue \u201cformal apologies.\u201d How the board will receive and evaluate claims, however, remains unclear. The settlement leaves that entirely to the board itself, which will \u201cdetermine its own procedures for submitting, receiving, processing, and granting or denying claims.\u201d<\/p>\n

Among the most troubling provisions in the already-troubling document are those that appear designed to shield the board\u2019s work from public scrutiny. The settlement provides that the board may make its procedures public \u201cin whole or in part, in its discretion\u201d\u2014meaning it need not disclose how it evaluates claims, what standards it applies, or why it dispensed particular awards.<\/p>\n

And while the agreement requires the board to submit quarterly reports to the attorney general listing the name of each claimant and the nature of their relief, those reports are designated \u201cconfidential.\u201d In practice, this means the identities of those who are awarded taxpayer funds may be kept secret from the public, and only known to Blanche and the five-member board he appoints.<\/p>\n

Asked about this at the May 19 congressional hearing, Blanche told senators that he would make the report public except to the extent withholding is mandated by privacy laws or applicable privileges. We shall see.<\/p>\n

What\u2019s the Source of the Funds?<\/strong><\/p>\n

The settlement document itself does not identify the amount of money that will be allocated to the fund or the source of that funding. Instead, it provides that the attorney general, within 30 days of the settlement\u2019s effective date, \u201cshall establish funding and any other relevant requirements.\u201d<\/p>\n

Blanche did so the same day the settlement was signed, in an accompanying May 18 order that directed the Treasury to deposit $1,776,000,000 into a dedicated account for the \u201csole use\u201d by the Anti-Weaponization Fund within 60 days.<\/p>\n

Bizarrely, Blanche\u2019s order insists that the amount of funding allocated \u201cdoes not represent the value of any claim by Plaintiffs, but rather is based on the projected valuation of future claimants\u2019 claims.\u201d We question whether Blanche really believes that $1.776 billion is the \u201cprojected valuation\u201d of anything, rather than a reference to the year of the nation\u2019s founding (which, disturbingly, the far-right co-opted as it tried to overturn Trump\u2019s election loss).<\/p>\n

Whatever the justification offered for the sum, the money comes from the federal Judgment Fund, a permanent congressional appropriation used to pay court judgments and negotiated settlements against the United States. Once deposited, the order provides, the government bears no further liability for the funds, including in the event of bank failure, fraud, or misuse. (That no-further-liability language may not be as ominous as it sounds: it appears to be identical to language in the Keepseagle<\/em> settlement, which we discuss in much more detail below.)<\/p>\n

Read more Has Russia Overplayed Its Hand in UN Cyber Negotiations?<\/a><\/p>\n

The fund will process claims through Dec. 15, 2028, or roughly one month before Trump\u2019s second term ends.<\/strong><\/p>\n

What Else is in the Settlement?<\/strong><\/p>\n

The day after the Department of Justice announced the fund, Blanche dropped another bombshell. Shortly after he finished testifying on Capitol Hill, the Department of Justice posted another Blanche-signed document, dated that day, in the same weird format as the previous day\u2019s document. Let\u2019s call this one Blanche II. It essentially waives any claims against the plaintiffs, as well as their families and companies arising out of: \u201c(1) any matters that were raised or could have been raised in the Case or the Pending Agency Claims; (2) Lawfare and\/or Weaponization; or (3) any matters currently pending or that could be pending (including tax returns filed before the Effective Date) before Defendants or other agencies or departments.\u201d<\/p>\n

The first category is uninteresting. As part of a settlement, it is common for a party to waive any counterclaims it might have had against the other party. And this mirrors the corresponding release of claims by the Trump plaintiffs in the settlement agreement.<\/p>\n

The second category is confusing, because the document incorporates by reference the strange and partisan definitions of \u201cLawfare\u201d and \u201cWeaponization\u201d from the previous day\u2019s settlement agreement. Is this attempting to waive any governmental action against the Trumps for anything, at least anything that has already happened?<\/p>\n

The third category would seem to answer that question with a resounding yes. By waiving any matter that \u201ccould be pending\u201d before any<\/em> agency or department, Blanche II purports to give the Trump family blanket immunity from the government for everything they have done<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The parenthetical \u201c(including tax returns filed before the Effective Date)\u201d is at once logically unnecessary, possibly illegal, and clarifying. According to a 2024 New York Times report, an ongoing IRS audit might cost Trump over $100 million. It stands to reason that this is what he is most concerned with. It seems almost quaint to mention at this late date, but under 26 U.S.C. \u00a7 7217 it is a crime for the president \u201cto request, directly or indirectly, any [IRS] officer . . . to conduct or terminate an audit or other investigation of any particular taxpayer.\u201d The president, as a plaintiff, entering into a settlement with the Department of Justice that ends this audit sure seems like indirectly \u201crequesting\u201d that the IRS stand down, in violation of the statute.<\/p>\n

There is ambiguity as to whether this immunity is only civil or whether it also covers criminal liability. On the one hand, such releases in civil litigation typically apply only to civil matters, and the type of words used is consistent with that. Furthermore, a criminal pardon is a presidential matter; except in the narrow confines of settling a specific ongoing matter, such clemency may not be bestowed by the attorney general. On the other hand, ambiguity in settlement documents is often construed against the government.<\/p>\n

Is this actually binding on the Department of Justice after Trump leaves office? Once again, we are in uncharted territory. All the arguments against the president being able to pardon himself would seem to apply to such a blanket immunity here, even if it applies only civilly. And more besides: If the president cannot pardon himself, how can his underlyings do so?<\/p>\n

Furthermore, what is the basis for this document? It is not part of the settlement agreement signed the previous day, which ended the case. The opening paragraph in Blanche II is the same as in Blanche I: \u201cThe Settlement Agreement in Trump v. Internal Revenue Service, No. 1:26-cv-20609 (S.D. Fla.), has created the Anti-Weaponization Fund (the \u2018Fund\u2019). The Settlement Agreement directed the Attorney General to issue an order establishing funding and any other relevant requirements for the Fund.\u201d<\/p>\n

The rest of Blanche II, however, has nothing to do with the fund. What gives him the authority to issue it? He is not a party to the case and he is not exercising any authority delegated to him by the settlement agreement. (The settlement agreement, unlike Blanche\u2019s documents, was at least signed by the IRS\u2019s top official.)<\/p>\n

A future Department of Justice freed from Trumpian political constraints would likely treat Blanche II as presumptively invalid.<\/p>\n

Is There Precedent for This?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Blanche I, as well as the Justice Department\u2019s press release, cited as precedent for the fund Keepseagle v. Vilsack<\/em>, a long-running class action suit involving claims by Native American farmers that the U.S. Department of Agriculture illegally discriminated against them when issuing loans. The Obama administration settled that case for $760 million, establishing a court-approved fund to administer claims. Several hundred million dollars in unclaimed funds were eventually distributed to non-profits working in Native American communities\u2014a fact that Trump\u2019s Justice Department cites in its press release to imply that the Anti-Weaponization Fund is comparatively superior, since the settlement agreement states that unspent funds will revert to the government at the end of Trump\u2019s term in office.<\/p>\n

The Justice Department\u2019s comparison of this settlement to Keepseagle <\/em>is simultaneously factually accurate and wildly misleading, in at least four ways.<\/p>\n

First, in Keepseagle<\/em>, the government settled a case that had been ongoing for over a decade, filed on behalf of a class of Native American farmers who alleged illegal loan discrimination. Here, by contrast, there literally is no case\u2014other than the suit filed by the Trumps against the IRS. That suit\u2014in addition to being collusive\u2014is wholly irrelevant to the claims this fund purports to entertain.<\/p>\n

Second, because Keepseagle <\/em>was a class action, the original settlement was approved by the federal judge hearing the case, including a provision that any leftover funds would go to nonprofit organizations. (As discussed below, however, the courts in that case concluded that they lacked jurisdiction to modify the settlement when the leftover funds turned out to be far greater than anticipated.) Here, the \u201cparties\u201d settled on their own. That\u2019s perfectly legal. But since the parties are Trump and his underlings, it\u2019s pretty clear why they didn\u2019t want a court involved.<\/p>\n

Third, in Keepseagle<\/em>, it was clear in what way the government allegedly violated the law. Here, there is just alleged \u201cweaponization\u201d\u2014whatever that means.<\/p>\n

Fourth, the Department of Justice disingenuously suggests this fund is superior to Keepseagle<\/em> in that any money unexpectedly left over at the end will revert to the government rather than being doled out to nonprofits not involved in the case. But the entire<\/em> Anti-Weaponization Fund is being disbursed to people not involved in the underlying litigation. The claimants invited to allege \u201cweaponization\u201d are the true equivalents of the nonprofits who received $300 million in Keepseagle.<\/em> And whereas those nonprofits received funds due to an unexpected development\u2014fewer fund claimants than anticipated\u2014here the third parties are the whole ballgame.<\/p>\n

And there\u2019s a more basic point here: Republicans were not happy about the Keepseagle <\/em>third-party payments and took steps to block anything similar in the future. Three months after taking office, Trump\u2019s first attorney general, Jeff Sessions, issued a memorandum instructing department attorneys not to enter into any settlement \u201cthat directs or provides for a payment or loan to any non-governmental person or entity that is not a party to the dispute\u201d unless it \u201cdirectly remedies the harm that is sought to be redressed.\u201d House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, a Republican, hailed the policy change.<\/p>\n

This settlement would not seem to be allowable under that test. The harm that the Trump plaintiffs sought to redress was a contractor\u2019s criminal leak of their tax returns. Doling out cash to \u201cweaponization\u201d claimants would not seem to directly remedy that harm. (And the Trump administration removed even that exception in a 2020 regulation.)<\/p>\n

In the Biden administration, Attorney General Merrick Garland rescinded the 2020 regulation and allowed third-party payments that for projects that \u201chave a strong connection to the underlying violation or violations of federal law at issue.\u201d Again, it is difficult to imagine how the Anti-Weaponization Fund would qualify.<\/p>\n

And then Pam Bondi, on her first full day in office, issued a memorandum revoking the Garland memorandum, which had the effect of reinstating the stricter policies of the first Trump administration.<\/p>\n

The bottom line is that Todd Blanche\u2019s Department of Justice is misleadingly comparing the establishment of this fund to a settlement that was vastly different and that the Trump administration\u2014two Trump administrations!\u2014tried to ensure would never happen again.<\/p>\n

What Did the Judge Do Once Trump Moved to Drop the Case?<\/strong><\/p>\n

When Trump filed his notice of dismissal on May 18, it left many wondering whether Judge Williams would play any role in scrutinizing the settlement\u2014or whether she even had the power to do so. The short answer is no.<\/p>\n

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), a plaintiff may dismiss a case without a court order simply by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party has answered or moved for summary judgment. Trump’s lawyers invoked that rule in its , deliberately noting that the dismissal is \u201cself-executing\u201d and \u201cdoes not require judicial action.\u201d Because the government had never filed an answer to Trump\u2019s complaint, the rule applied, and Williams was essentially stripped of jurisdiction the moment the notice hit the docket.<\/p>\n

This is one of the many ways, as discussed previously, in which the Justice Department’s invocation of Keepseagle<\/em> as precedent is misleading. In Keepseagle<\/em>, the settlement was subject to judicial supervision precisely because it was a class action: under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23, a class action settlement cannot take effect without court approval, which gave the presiding judge meaningful oversight over its terms. No such supervision exists here. Trump v. IRS<\/em> was an ordinary civil suit, not a class action, which meant that once Trump filed his notice of dismissal, Williams had no hook on which to hang a review of the settlement. And, given the timing of the dismissal, she was divested of jurisdiction before she could hold the May 27 hearing on the \u201ccase or controversy\u201d issue.<\/p>\n

But Williams did not exactly go quietly. On May 20\u2014the same day the parties’ jurisdictional briefs had been due\u2014she formally closing the case. In her order, she noted that the Justice Department, which has an \u201cindependent obligation to uphold the \u2018public\u2019s strong interest in knowing about the conduct of its Government and expenditure of its resources,\u2019\u201d had \u201cneither submitted any settlement documents nor filed any documents ensuring that settlement was appropriate where there was an outstanding question as to whether an actual case or controversy existed.\u201d<\/p>\n

Is This Legal? If Not, What\u2019s the Remedy?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the U.S. Constitution provides that \u201c[n]o Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.\u201d In 1956, Congress established the , codified at 31 U.S.C. \u00a7 1304, a permanent appropriation that generally allows the federal government to pay all judgments and settlements. The Judgment Fund statute cross-references 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 2414, which provides in pertinent part:<\/p>\n

Except as otherwise provided by law, compromise settlements of claims referred to the Attorney General for defense of imminent litigation or suits against the United States, or against its agencies or officials upon obligations or liabilities of the United States, made by the Attorney General or any person authorized by him, shall be settled and paid in a manner similar to judgments in like causes and appropriations or funds available for the payment of such judgments are hereby made available for the payment of such compromise settlements.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This language is extremely broad. Does \u201ccompromise settlements of claims\u201d refer only to payments to plaintiffs and potential plaintiffs? Or could the claims cover payments to third parties, as here and in Keepseagle<\/em>? Does the sheer magnitude of the payments to third parties matter? How about the fact that all<\/em> the money is going to third parties? Does it matter that, unlike in Keepseagle<\/em>, the third-party payment recipients bear no connection to the original dispute? What about the fact that, as Judge Williams\u2019 amici<\/em> concluded, the original lawsuit might not contain sufficient adversity? The answers to these questions are unknown.<\/p>\n

In the Keepseagle <\/em>case, some judges were troubled by the gargantuan third-party payments, which were far bigger than the parties anticipated when originally reaching a settlement providing that any leftover funds would go to third-party nonprofits. The issue came before U.S. District Judge for the District of Columbia Emmett Sullivan when class members tried to reopen the settlement when the size of the leftover money became clear. Judge Sullivan wrote that \u201c[a]lthough a $380,000,000 donation by the federal government to charities serving Native American farmers and ranchers might well be in the public interest, the Court doubts that the judgment fund from which this money came was intended to serve such a purpose.\u201d He concluded, however, that he had no authority to reopen the case and was bound by the final judgment, five years earlier, in which he had approved the original settlement. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed that it lacked jurisdiction, over a blistering dissent by Judge Janice Rogers Brown, who would have reached the merits and held that the payment to third parties was not authorized by 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 2414 and thus violated the Appropriations Clause.<\/p>\n

Here, too, a court likely would have great difficulty reaching the merits. The hard part would be finding someone who has standing. A generalized grievance does not suffice. Thus, with rare exceptions, standing based upon one\u2019s status as a taxpayer does not get one through the proverbial courtroom door.<\/p>\n

Today, two police officers who came under attack on Jan. 6 filed suit to challenge the establishment of the fund. In , they assert that they have standing because the fund\u2019s existence conveys that people who act violently in support of Trump will be financially rewarded, and will lead to an increase in violent threats against them\u2014even more so if and when payments are made. This assertion is likely too speculative to survive a motion to dismiss for lack of standing. No doubt other creative lawyers will try, but it is hard to imagine any person who would have the sort of \u201cconcrete and particularized\u201d injury that suffices for standing.<\/p>\n

Could Congress sue on the ground that it never appropriated funds for this purpose? The question, somewhat surprisingly, remains disputed at this late date. Most recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held in 2020 that the House of Representatives could raise an Appropriations Clause challenge to the first Trump administration transfer of funds to build a wall along the southern border in the absence of specific congressional appropriations for that purpose. But the case became moot when Trump lost the election and the Biden administration decided not to continue building the wall, and the D.C. Circuit opinion was vacated as a result. (Full disclosure: one of us (Eric) litigated for the House\u2019s unsuccessful effort to prevent vacatur<\/em> of the D.C. Circuit\u2019s opinion.) The Supreme Court has never weighed in on whether one or both houses of Congress may maintain such a suit.<\/p>\n

Of course, it is extraordinarily unlikely that this <\/em>House or Senate would file suit. But one or both houses may be under Democratic control come January, and might choose to pursue litigation.<\/p>\n

But the easier remedy, legally speaking, is legislation. Congress could pass legislation at any moment to block the fund\u2014and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has signaled he intends to try to do so via amendments to the Republicans\u2019 reconciliation bill. If Democrats prevail in the midterm elections, they may try to do so via the normal appropriations process. Some might also want to try to claw back payments already made, although that could raise its own legal concerns.<\/p>\n

Speaking of legality, it\u2019s worth noting that the Treasury Department needs to certify any payment from the Judgment Fund. And under the Antideficiency Act, it is a federal crime to \u201cknowingly and willfully\u201d spend money not appropriated by Congress. While apparently no one has ever been prosecuted for this, there is always a first time, and counting on a preemptive Trump pardon may be an unwise bet. But a\u00a0 good-faith belief in the lawfulness of a payment from the Judgment Fund to the Anti-Weaponization Fund would be a sufficient defense to any such charge.<\/p>\n

(On the same day the settlement was released, the New York Times reported that Department of the Treasury General Counsel Brian Morrissey had abruptly resigned in the wake of the settlement. It seems quite likely that the two were connected. We do not know if Morrissey\u2019s concerns related to the settlement\u2019s wisdom or its legality or both. But as Treasury general counsel, he likely knows a lot more about the settlement, and possible legal concerns, than we do.)<\/p>\n

One final note on legality and remedy: Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) has suggested that Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides, among other things, that \u201cneither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States,\u201d would at least bar claims by Jan. 6 rioters.<\/p>\n

Any litigation based on such a claim is unlikely to succeed. Even if Jan. 6 constituted an \u201cinsurrection or rebellion against the United States\u201d (a question the Supreme Court dodged in overturning the Colorado Supreme Court\u2019s order to exclude Trump from the presidential ballot in the Republican primary), and even if Section 4 could be considered self-executing in the absence of congressional action (a question the Supreme Court answered in the negative in that case with regard to Section 3), it is hard to see how the relevant \u201cdebt or obligation\u201d could have been \u201cincurred in aid of\u201d an insurrection or rebellion that ended over five years ago, and that in any event ended before any alleged \u201cweaponization\u201d took place. And, of course, the standing hurdle would remain.<\/p>\n

What\u2019s the Bottom Line?<\/strong><\/p>\n

A sitting president filed a lawsuit against agencies he controls, staffed by lawyers who work for him, in a case that a federal judge had serious doubts was a lawsuit at all\u2014and then dismissed it before she could rule. What emerged from that process is a $1.776 billion fund that may end up paying vast numbers of the president\u2019s political allies, including people who were convicted of serious crimes, whether by guilty pleas or juries of their peers. This has been called a \u201csettlement.\u201d\u00a0 But it\u2019s worth pausing on how little that word actually applies.\u00a0<\/p>\n

What makes this particular episode so unsettling is that it\u2019s not clear how it would be stopped. The legal avenues to challenge it are untested and the standing hurdles are formidable. Meanwhile, the legislative appetite to act\u2014at least in this Congress\u2014is not yet apparent. By the time a future Congress might try, nearly $2 billion in taxpayer funds may be largely gone, dispersed to recipients whose identities may never be publicly known.<\/p>\n

All of which is to say that Trump has once again done something that is obviously corrupt but may prove impossible to unravel\u2014unless a Congress controlled by his party finds the rare gumption to buck him.<\/p>\n

Read more Politicians to Ditch Signal for Homegrown Apps<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Trump administration settles Trump\u2019s lawsuit against the IRS with $1.776 billion for his allies and blanket immunity from government suits for the Trumps.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":29,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-30","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-executive-branch"],"yoast_head":"\nThe President Who Sued Himself - National Consumer Reports<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/?p=30\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The President Who Sued Himself - National Consumer Reports\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The Trump administration settles Trump\u2019s lawsuit against the IRS with $1.776 billion for his allies and blanket immunity from government suits for the Trumps.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/?p=30\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"National Consumer Reports\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-05-24T16:40:35+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"30 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\\\/?p=30#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\\\/?p=30\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/ef6e8820a5e2e961e9b8cda481436ac0\"},\"headline\":\"The President Who Sued Himself\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-05-24T16:40:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\\\/?p=30\"},\"wordCount\":6065,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\\\/?p=30#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/9ad933165d99e0ccf263488022c1aceb.jpeg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Executive Branch\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\\\/?p=30#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\\\/?p=30\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\\\/?p=30\",\"name\":\"The President Who Sued Himself - National Consumer Reports\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\\\/?p=30#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\\\/?p=30#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/9ad933165d99e0ccf263488022c1aceb.jpeg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-05-24T16:40:35+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/ef6e8820a5e2e961e9b8cda481436ac0\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\\\/?p=30#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\\\/?p=30\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\\\/?p=30#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/9ad933165d99e0ccf263488022c1aceb.jpeg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/9ad933165d99e0ccf263488022c1aceb.jpeg\",\"width\":900,\"height\":600},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\\\/?p=30#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The President Who Sued Himself\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\\\/\",\"name\":\"National Consumer Reports\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/ef6e8820a5e2e961e9b8cda481436ac0\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\\\/\\\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\\\/?author=1\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The President Who Sued Himself - National Consumer Reports","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/?p=30","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The President Who Sued Himself - National Consumer Reports","og_description":"The Trump administration settles Trump\u2019s lawsuit against the IRS with $1.776 billion for his allies and blanket immunity from government suits for the Trumps.","og_url":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/?p=30","og_site_name":"National Consumer Reports","article_published_time":"2026-05-24T16:40:35+00:00","author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"30 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/?p=30#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/?p=30"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/#\/schema\/person\/ef6e8820a5e2e961e9b8cda481436ac0"},"headline":"The President Who Sued Himself","datePublished":"2026-05-24T16:40:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/?p=30"},"wordCount":6065,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/?p=30#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/9ad933165d99e0ccf263488022c1aceb.jpeg","articleSection":["Executive Branch"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/?p=30#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/?p=30","url":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/?p=30","name":"The President Who Sued Himself - National Consumer Reports","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/?p=30#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/?p=30#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/9ad933165d99e0ccf263488022c1aceb.jpeg","datePublished":"2026-05-24T16:40:35+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/#\/schema\/person\/ef6e8820a5e2e961e9b8cda481436ac0"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/?p=30#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/?p=30"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/?p=30#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/9ad933165d99e0ccf263488022c1aceb.jpeg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/9ad933165d99e0ccf263488022c1aceb.jpeg","width":900,"height":600},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/?p=30#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The President Who Sued Himself"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/","name":"National Consumer Reports","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/#\/schema\/person\/ef6e8820a5e2e961e9b8cda481436ac0","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"admin"},"sameAs":["http:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com"],"url":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/?author=1"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=30"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/29"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=30"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=30"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nationalconsumerreportss.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=30"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}