Late last week, two federal courts dealt separate blows to President Trump’s efforts to establish an “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” a pot of federal money that President Trump could effectively pay out to his supporters with no meaningful oversight or check.
In one case, the court temporarily halted the Fund’s implementation while the court considers a motion for a temporary restraining order. In the other case, the original case brought by President Trump, the court ordered the plaintiffs to brief whether the case was collusive from the get-go, justifying dismissal and potential sanctions against the attorneys. Those cases, and others challenging the Fund, are pending; we don’t have any definitive rulings yet.
The episode is a case study in the attempted aggrandizement of presidential power at the expense of Congress and the courts. It comes in two steps. First, President Trump tried to play the courts by filing and “settling” a collusive lawsuit against an agency he supervises. Next, he tried to bypass Congress by unilaterally establishing a nearly $1.8 billion fund, with his own five-member board to control it.
But federal courts don’t hear collusive lawsuits. Instead, Article III requires that parties be adverse. And in our system, the president can’t just establish a fund and a board to control it. Article I says that those powers belong to Congress.
The courts and Congress, if they play their institutional roles in our checks-and-balances system, can reassert their powers by pushing back against this effort. The courts can reopen the original collusive case and scrutinize the parties’ behavior, and they can rule that the Fund violates the separation of powers, among other things. Congress, for its part, can enact legislation restricting the Fund or even eliminating it (subject, of course, to an admittedly unlikely presidential signature or a similarly unlikely veto override). It could also hold up other presidential priorities and even engage in meaningful oversight. But again: only if it’s willing to play its institutional role.
In the meantime, to see how this unfolded, here’s a short history:
The Lawsuit: January 2026
In January 2026, President Trump, his sons, and the Trump organization sued the IRS and Treasury Department on the ground that a former government contractor improperly released Trump tax documents. The plaintiffs sought $10 billion in damages.
The lawsuit was, er, unusual. For one, presidents don’t typically sue agencies that they supervise. President Trump acknowledged this himself shortly after he filed suit when he said, “I’m supposed to work out a settlement with myself.” For another, the $10 billion claim for damages seemed on the high side. For a third, the plaintiffs filed the suit outside the two-year statute of limitations for lawsuits challenging the unauthorized disclosure of tax returns.
Outside parties raised these issues and others with the court. Department of Justice attorneys, who represent the government in court, did not even file an appearance in the case.
The court, concerned that the lawsuit may have been collusive (and that it therefore might have lacked jurisdiction), ordered the parties to file briefs on the issue by May 20, 2026.
Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss the Case: May 18, 2026
On May 18, two days before the court’s deadline to file briefs on the jurisdictional issue, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case. (Federal rules allow a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss their case; and when they do, the case goes away.) The plaintiffs did not file a brief on the jurisdictional issue, and they did not attach a settlement agreement. As a result, the court did not rule on the jurisdictional issue, and it did not approve any settlement. Instead, it simply dismissed the case.
DOJ Announces an Agreement: May 18, 2026
Later that same day, DOJ announced that the parties reached an agreement: DOJ would establish a $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” “[t]o provide a systematic process to hear and redress claims” of “individuals, groups, and entities” who were “target[ed]” “by Democrat elected officials, political and career federal employees, contractors, and agents . . . for improper and unlawful political, personal, and/or ideological reasons.” Under the agreement, the Attorney General appoints five members to operate the fund. President Trump has authority to remove the members at will.
Money for the fund comes from the DOJ Judgment Fund, a fund authorized by Congress that allows DOJ to settle lawsuits against the government under certain conditions and subject to certain restraints. It does not allow DOJ to siphon funds off to an “Anti-Weaponization Fund.”
By design, the “Anti-Weaponization Fund” effectively allows President Trump to pay certain political supporters out of the government’s coffers, without meaningful checks or oversight. As many have pointed out, potential beneficiaries almost certainly include January 6 protestors.
More Agreements: May 19, 2026
DOJ later announced that the agreement also provides President Trump and the other plaintiffs with permanent protection against tax audits and prosecutions “before Defendants or other agencies and departments” that are “currently pending or that could be pending.”
According to wide reporting, this could protect President Trump from a federal tax liability of $100 million or more. It’s also a highly unusual “settlement” term.
Lawsuits: May 2026
Various plaintiffs sued in several lawsuits to stop the Fund. Among other things, they argued that the Fund
- violates the separation of powers, because Congress (the branch that has the powers to pass laws, create government agencies, and appropriate federal funds) did not authorize it;
- conflicts with federal law and regulations, including DOJ’s regulations on the Judgment Fund and DOJ’s policy of prohibiting settlements that involve payments to third parties;
- lacks connection to the alleged claims and damages in the original lawsuit;
- violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments by discriminating among beneficiaries by viewpoint.
Others have pointed out that the Fund violates Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment, insofar as it could pay January 6 protestors or others involved in the effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election. That section prohibits the United States from “assum[ing] or pay[ing] any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States . . . .”
District Court Halts Fund: May 29, 2026
Judge Leonie M. Brinkema (E.D. Va.) temporarily halted implementation of the Fund while the court considers a motion for a temporary restraining order in one of the cases challenging the Fund. Judge Brinkeman ordered the defendants to file a response to the plaintiffs’ motion by June 5, with any reply due by June 10. The hearing on the motion is set for June 12.
Court Reopens Trump Case: May 29, 2026
On the same day, Judge Kathleen M. Williams (S.D. Fl.), the judge in President Trump’s original case against the IRS and Treasury, ordered the case reopened in order to assess whether the case was collusive, whether “dismissal in [the] case was premised on deception by the Parties,” and whether “the Court was the ‘victim of a fraud.’” Judge Williams ordered the plaintiffs to file their briefs by June 12, 2026, and allowed a response brief by June 19.
The order came in response to a friend-of-the-court motion to reopen the case filed by thirty-five former federal judges.
Constitution360 
Leave a comment