A bipartisan group of 35 retired federal judges has filed a motion asking a federal court in Florida to reopen President Donald Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS, citing concerns that the out-of-court settlement used to create the $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” may constitute fraud against the court.
The filing, submitted May 27, claims that Trump and the federal government failed to disclose the settlement agreement when they voluntarily moved to dismiss the case earlier in the month.
Details of the Settlement and Fund
The agreement, reached between Trump and the Justice Department, included the creation of a compensation fund for individuals who claim they were targeted by alleged political “weaponization” of government agencies.
The retired judges wrote in their 24-page filing:
“The Court was deceived. The settlement commandeers the contrived sum of $1.776 billion from the United States Treasury, to be handed out to recipients chosen by a commission effectively controlled by the President.”
The fund has been criticized by Democrats, ethics watchdogs, and some Republicans, who raise concerns about oversight and the potential for payouts to Trump allies, including January 6 defendants.
Background: Trump IRS Lawsuit
Trump, his two eldest sons, and the Trump Organization filed the original lawsuit in January, seeking up to $10 billion in damages over the leak of the president’s tax returns by a former IRS contractor.
Under the May 18 settlement, Trump agreed to drop the lawsuit in exchange for:
- A formal apology from the Justice Department
- The creation of the $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund
- Assurance that Trump himself would receive no money
An addendum to the settlement also bars the IRS from pursuing certain preexisting tax claims against Trump, his family, or his businesses.
Judges’ Concerns and Legal Argument
The retired judges argue that the settlement bypassed judicial scrutiny because the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case before U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams could determine whether the lawsuit constituted a legitimate legal dispute.
Judge Williams had previously questioned whether the parties were “sufficiently adverse,” noting that Trump was effectively suing agencies within his own administration.
The judges contend that the arrangement allows Trump to control the fund while avoiding court oversight, raising concerns about transparency, legality, and potential conflicts of interest.
Defense of the Fund
The Justice Department has defended the fund as lawful and intended to compensate individuals unfairly targeted by government investigations or prosecutions.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche stated that the fund ensures victims of “lawfare and weaponization” can seek redress.
Trump also defended the initiative, saying on May 19:
“This is reimbursing people that were horribly treated. They’re getting reimbursed for their legal fees and the other things that they had to suffer.”
Summary Table: Trump IRS Lawsuit and Anti-Weaponization Fund
| Feature | Details | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Case | Trump, Trump Organization vs. IRS | Ongoing legal scrutiny |
| Original Claim | Leak of Trump tax returns, up to $10B damages | Filed Jan 2026 |
| Settlement | May 18, 2026; formal apology + $1.776B fund | DOJ & Trump agreement |
| Fund Purpose | Compensate alleged victims of political “weaponization” | Controversial, oversight concerns |
| Judges’ Filing | 35 retired federal judges allege fraud against court | Submitted May 27, 2026 |
| Court | Federal court in Florida, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams | Reopening requested |
| Criticism | Democrats, watchdogs, some Republicans | Active |
| DOJ Defense | Lawful mechanism for redress of victims | Supported by Acting AG Todd Blanche |
| Trump Defense | Reimburse individuals for legal fees and harm | Publicly stated |
The effort by 35 retired federal judges to reopen Trump’s IRS lawsuit underscores the legal and ethical scrutiny surrounding the Anti-Weaponization Fund. Questions about court transparency, fund oversight, and potential conflicts of interest have made the settlement a focal point for bipartisan debate.
As the case moves forward, the federal court in Florida will need to weigh these concerns against the stated goal of compensating those allegedly harmed by politicized government actions.
