A federal judge has decided to reopen Donald Trump’s $10 million lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), aiming to investigate whether the case’s resolution was built on deceptive grounds. This decision comes from Judge Kathleen M. Williams, who revisited the case shortly after Trump chose to drop it. His withdrawal was connected to the Department of Justice’s creation of a $1.8 billion fund intended to compensate his allies.
However, the allocation from this fund—dubbed the ‘Anti-Weaponization Fund’—has been temporarily halted by another judge, pending legal challenges regarding its legitimacy. The fund was established to settle Trump’s lawsuit concerning the leak of his tax returns and was intended to support those who have allegedly faced political persecution.
U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, appointed by Bill Clinton, has intervened, preventing officials from proceeding with the fund’s establishment or any disbursements for at least two weeks. This halt is an attempt to ensure due process in addressing the legality of the fund’s existence amid ongoing litigation.
Judge Brinkema has slated a hearing for June 12 to consider arguments on whether her order to suspend the government’s actions concerning the ‘Anti-Weaponization Fund’ should be extended. This session will play a crucial role in determining the fund’s future as the legal battle unfolds.
But US District Judge Leonie Brinkema, a Bill Clinton appointee officials from proceeding with the fund, halting its formation or any potential payouts for at least the next two weeks.
Brinkema has scheduled a June 12 hearing for arguments on whether to extend her order barring the government from moving forward with its ‘Anti-Weaponization Fund’ while pending litigation challenges it.
However, The Wall Street Journal reports that at least a dozen Republican Senators now want Trump to drop the fund as well as the suit.
A federal judge re-opened Donald Trump’s IRS lawsuit in a blow to his $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund
Kathleen M Williams revived the case just days after the president chose to abandon it in exchange for the Department of Justice creating a $1.8 billion slush fund to cover payouts for his allies
Top aides are now looking into the possibility of promising to get rid of it in exchange for funding of the President’s immigration crackdown.
A Justice Department spokesperson said it’s ‘extremely confident’ that the fund is legally supported ‘by ample precedent,’ including from settlements during the administration of President Barack Obama, a Democrat.
‘We will not allow the policy preferences of judges to interfere with our efforts to provide restitution to victims of lawfare,’ the spokesperson said in a statement.
The White House declined to comment on the judge’s ruling, referring questions to the Justice Department.
Brinkema gave the government another week to respond in writing to the plaintiffs’ arguments in favor of freezing the fund’s creation and operation, including any payments in or out of it.
The fund has generated a fierce backlash since it was announced last week, with even Republicans pressing acting Attorney General Todd Blanche over the eligibility considerations and the possibility that even violent rioters at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, would be free to seek compensation.
The Justice Department hasn’t formed the five-member commission that will decide on payout criteria, so there has been no money paid out yet or claims accepted.
Plaintiffs´ attorneys from the legal advocacy group Democracy Forward are seeking a court order halting the fund´s implementation and preventing the Trump administration from disbursing any payouts from it.
Join the discussion
Should presidents have the power to create billion-dollar funds to aid their political allies?
US District Judge Leonie Brinkema, a Bill Clinton appointee, also blocked the Trump administration from proceeding with the fund, halting its formation or any potential payouts for at least the next two weeks
Trump set up the fund in exchange for dropping his lawsuit against the IRS in which he sued over the leak of his tax returns
The federal suit claims there is no legal basis or accountability behind the fund.
‘President Trump and his allies have long accused Democrats of using the government and the legal system as political weapons,’ plaintiffs’ lawyers wrote.
‘In doing so, the (Trump) administration fails to acknowledge the unprecedented campaign of targeting individuals and entities for retribution on personal and ideological grounds that it has carried out.’
Brinkema said it’s important to maintain the status quo – for at least the next two weeks – and to ensure that no funds are ‘irreversibly disbursed’ from the fund.
Her order temporarily prohibits the Trump administration from transferring any money to the fund, considering any claims or disbursing any money from it.
The Virginia lawsuit’s plaintiffs include a fired prosecutor and a college professor acquitted of assaulting federal agents at a protest.
‘The unlawfulness that has imbued the Anti-Weaponization Fund from its inception requires that it be wholly dismantled,’ the suit says.
At least two other lawsuits, both filed separately in Washington, also are challenging the fund’s creation.
Trump’s so-called ‘slush fund’ was set up to reward political allies who claim the Biden Justice Department targeted them, but many lawmakers expressed outrage over the prospect of taxpayer money flowing to rioters who wounded police officers at the Capitol on January 6, 2021
A lawsuit filed by the advocacy group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington refers to the fund as ‘a jaw-dropping act of presidential corruption.’
Two police officers who helped defend the Capitol from a mob of Trump supporters sued last week.
During a congressional hearing, Blanche wouldn’t rule out the possibility that rioters who assaulted police on Jan 6 could be eligible for fund payouts.
Nearly 1,600 people were charged with Capitol riot-related federal crimes. Over 1,200 were convicted and sentenced before Trump handed out mass pardons, commuted prison sentences and ordered the dismissal of every pending Jan 6 criminal case last year.
One of the plaintiffs in the Virginia case is former Assistant US Attorney Andrew Floyd, who prosecuted Capitol riot cases in Washington before he was fired last year by then-Attorney General Pam Bondi. Floyd believes his firing was retaliation for his Jan 6 work.
‘The President’s targeting of me and others involved in January 6 prosecutions leaves our country in a very dark place, sending a message that insurrection and sedition will be protected (and even encouraged) as long as it is on behalf of this administration,’ Floyd said in a court filing.
Another plaintiff is California State University Channel Islands professor Jonathan Caravello, who was acquitted of an assault charge.
He was accused of throwing a tear gas canister at federal agents during a 2025 protest against an immigration raid at a Camarillo, California, cannabis farm.
The Daily Mail reached out to the White House for comment which directed inquiries to the Trump Organization.
