Judge agrees to review Trump’s $1.8 billion fund

A federal judge in Florida ordered the Trump administration’s lawyers to respond to a motion challenging the legitimacy of a $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization fund,” after 35 former federal judges argued the president effectively acted as both plaintiff and ove

A federal judge in Florida has agreed to take a hard look at the Trump administration’s $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization fund,” a taxpayer-backed pool created after the president resolved his lawsuit over the leak of his tax returns.

On Friday, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams ordered Trump’s lawyers to respond to a motion filed by 35 former federal judges who questioned whether the case that led to the settlement—and the fund built from it—was legitimate at all. The motion argues that Trump is. in effect. both the plaintiff and the defendant in the underlying matter. because he filed the IRS-related lawsuit as president while also serving as the leader of the executive branch that oversees the agency.

Those judges wrote that the lawsuit “is itself a fraud on the court.” They said the case was used to justify what they called the “looting” of American taxpayers. and they described it as a kind of “collusion” between the president’s lawyers and the federal government. They asked Williams to reopen the case and only consider the settlement after the court was “deceived.”.

Williams—appointed by former President Barack Obama—had previously granted a dismissal of Trump’s lawsuit following the settlement. But after the former judges’ motion, she said the court is “empowered to investigate serious misconduct.”

The Florida order lands amid another courtroom intervention. In Virginia, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, temporarily froze the fund. Brinkema ordered Trump officials on Friday to stop setting up the pool of money “to ensure that no funds are irreversibly disbursed. ” and she set a June 12 hearing to consider whether her pause should remain in place.

Justice Department officials have argued the money is meant to make people whole who they say were unjustly targeted. including Trump allies. Jan. 6 rioters, and others the president has described as victims of political persecution. On Saturday, a Justice Department spokesperson did not respond to an NPR request for comment.

Still, the legal fight over the fund’s existence is intensifying. Brinkema’s freeze followed a lawsuit brought by former Justice Department lawyer Andrew Floyd and other plaintiffs. They argued that the nearly $2 billion was never approved by Congress and that it “rewards and incentivizes unlawful behavior and facilitates an astounding abuse of taxpayer funds.”.

The dispute has also drawn sharper alarm from legal experts who say the fund lacks the kind of oversight and defined injury that has existed in other large-scale mass compensation efforts. Adam Zimmerman. a law professor at the University of Southern California. told NPR that past examples—whether tied to the Holocaust or the BP oil spill—ended up resolving sprawling class-action lawsuits. while this one does not.

Zimmerman said those cases involved identifiable injuries suffered by discrete groups of people for violations of real laws under neutrally applicable rules. sometimes shaped through mass litigation. “This fund, however, ‘doesn’t address real legal injuries,’” he said. In his view. the money is instead offered to “an indeterminate group of people. ” who “never threatened or commenced any kind of legal action. ” calling it “unlike anything we’ve seen in the history of the republic.”.

Taken together, the two rulings amount to an early legal setback for the fund. They also reflect the wider political friction the program has already sparked on Capitol Hill. where critics have argued it functions as a slush fund for Trump supporters who claim they were targeted for political reasons.

For the moment, Williams’s order ensures the fund’s legitimacy will be litigated rather than assumed settled. Brinkema’s pause means the question is not only legal—it is practical. too: whether money tied to the settlement can move forward before the courts decide what. if anything. the government has the authority to distribute and to whom.

Trump anti-weaponization fund Kathleen Williams Leonie Brinkema IRS tax returns leak Andrew Floyd lawsuit federal judge review Justice Department Jan. 6 rioters taxpayer funds