President Donald Trump speaks before Steve Witkoff is sworn as special envoy during a ceremony in the Oval Office of the White House, Tuesday, May 6, 2025, in Washington, with a portrait of former President Ronald Reagan in the background (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein).
A ruling from a Miami federal judge late on Friday could pose significant challenges for former President Donald Trump and his ambitious $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization fund.”
Trump initially filed a lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service in the Southern District of Florida back in January.
However, by mid-May, Trump chose to close the case on his own accord, switching gears towards a “settlement” intended to financially support his loyal supporters. This shift marks a strategic move by the 45th and 47th president.
The settlement outlines that eligible claimants are those who faced “ongoing government power misuse” by Democratic officials, federal employees, and associated agents against them for “inappropriate and illegal political, personal, and/or ideological motives.”
Despite the strategic intentions, Trump’s fund faced uncertainties and was not guaranteed to benefit him or the intended recipients.
In her order to close the case, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams, appointed by Barack Obama, noted that “no settlement of record” exists, as the voluntary dismissal notice “does not mention any settlement or contain a settlement stipulation.”
The judge had other concerns, too.
“Additionally, Defendants—federal agencies represented by the Department of Justice…neither 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,” the mid-May order reads.
Then quite a few more things happened that put the fund in doubt – including an injunction issued Friday morning by a judge in the Eastern District of Virginia that bars the DOJ “from taking any further action pursuant to the creation or operation of” the fund, including transferring money to the fund, considering any claims submitted to the fund, and disbursing any money from the fund.
Meanwhile, at least four other lawsuits and/or claims were filed that sought to pump the brakes on what Trump’s critics call a “slush fund.”
One of those claims was filed by nearly three dozen former federal judges who implored Williams to disregard the “fraudulent nature” of Trump’s voluntary dismissal, “reopen” the case, and look into “exactly what happened here,” as Law&Crime previously reported.
While it was an open question whether Williams would consider reopening a case she dismissed with prejudice – or if the retired judges would be able to maintain their objections to the fund under the auspices of the original lawsuit – those questions were quickly answered.
“Here, the non-party movants advance grievous allegations that Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this litigation solely to avoid judicial scrutiny of a lawsuit that ‘was collusive from the start’ and was only filed to provide the imprimatur of legality for an unlawful settlement,” Williams writes in her late Friday order.
The judge rattles off a laundry list of objections, at length:
They point to the fact that the settlement in question includes a “three-paragraph addendum . . . [that] purports to ‘forever bar and preclude’ the United States from pursuing claims that could have been [otherwise] asserted [against] Plaintiffs,” and highlight the fact that Defendants did not “even try to defend against Plaintiffs’ claims” despite their active opposition to nearly identical claims in other litigation. Finally, the non-party movants assert that Plaintiffs’ claims were “clearly untimely” and therefore untenable.
The order also suggests that Williams views the entire process – that is, the filing of the lawsuit and concomitant quick settlement – as perhaps indicative of a fraud on the court itself.
“A court is empowered to investigate serious misconduct as a collateral issue within the purview of Rule 11 and determine ‘whether an attorney has abused the judicial process,’” the judge opines – citing the relevant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure.
“The purpose of Rule 11 is to deter baseless filings,” the order goes on, citing precedent. “Specifically, Rule 11 ‘requires that an attorney or unrepresented party filing a pleading certify that the filing is not presented for any improper purpose.’ A party’s decision to file a frivolous lawsuit for the sole purpose of forcing a settlement may qualify as such an improper purpose.”
Here, Williams suggests those involved may find themselves subject to discipline should the worst conclusions – for Trump and the federal agencies involved – be reached.
“If a party files a lawsuit for an improper purpose, ‘the court may impose an appropriate sanction on the responsible party,’” the order continues.
To that end, the judge has directed the plaintiffs to file a response to the former judges that includes responses to: “(1) the charges of collusion and whether the Parties are truly adverse; (2) the assertion that the dismissal in this case was premised on deception by the Parties; and (3) the question of whether the case should be reopened because the Court was the ‘victim of a fraud.’”
The government must answer those pointed questions by June 12, the judge said. The retired judges will be able to respond until June 19.
