U.S. Judge to Review Trump Administration’s $1.8 Billion ‘Anti-Weaponization’ Fund After Former Jurists Allege Fraud on Court
A federal judge is scrutinizing a $1.8 billion fund established to compensate individuals President Donald Trump says were wronged by the federal government. U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams in Florida on Friday ordered Trump’s lawyers to respond to a motion filed by 35 former federal judges, who argued that the lawsuit underlying the fund is “a fraud on the court.” The fund, dubbed the “anti-weaponization” fund by the administration, was created after Trump sued the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns, with the case settled without trial by Trump administration lawyers and the president’s personal legal team agreeing to establish the taxpayer-supported pool of money.
Background of the Legal Challenge
The former judges, appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents, contended that Trump effectively served as both plaintiff and defendant in the case, having filed the lawsuit as president while also leading the executive branch that oversees the Internal Revenue Service. In their motion, they described the lawsuit as a justification for the “looting” of American taxpayers and alleged a form of “collusion” between the president’s lawyers and the federal government. The jurists asked Judge Williams to reopen the case and determine whether the settlement was reached only after the court was “deceived.” Williams, appointed by former President Barack Obama, had initially dismissed Trump’s lawsuit following the settlement, but she stated that the court is “empowered to investigate serious misconduct” in light of the former judges’ motion.
Concurrent Court Order Freezing the Fund
The Florida development follows a separate order from U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Virginia, who temporarily froze the fund on Friday. Brinkema, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, directed Trump officials to stop setting up the pool of money to “ensure that no funds are irreversibly disbursed.” She set a June 12 hearing for arguments on whether the freeze should be extended. The fund, which Trump officials have described as an effort to compensate Trump allies, January 6 rioters, and others the president says were unjustly targeted, has sparked divisions on Capitol Hill, with critics labeling it a slush fund for supporters claiming political persecution.
Legal Arguments and Government Response
Brinkema’s order resulted from a lawsuit brought by former Justice Department lawyer Andrew Floyd and other plaintiffs, who argued that the nearly $2 billion was never approved by Congress and “rewards and incentivizes unlawful behavior and facilitates an astounding abuse of taxpayer funds.” A Justice Department spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment on Saturday, but Justice Department officials said on social media, “We will do everything in our power to make whole those who were persecuted for political purposes.” Together, the two court orders represent an early legal setback for the fund.
Expert Criticism of the Fund’s Structure
Legal experts have raised concerns about the fund’s lack of oversight and its disconnect from the claims Trump alleged in his Internal Revenue Service lawsuit. Adam Zimmerman, a law professor at the University of Southern California, told NPR that past examples of presidential-directed mass compensation funds—such as those related to the Holocaust or the BP oil spill—resolved sprawling class-action lawsuits involving identifiable injuries to discrete groups under neutrally applicable rules. “All those cases involved identifiable injuries, to discrete groups of people, for violations of real laws, under neutrally applicable rules, often brokered in the shadow of a class action litigation or mass litigation,” Zimmerman said on Saturday. In contrast, he argued, this fund “doesn’t address real legal injuries” and “offers money to an indeterminate” group.
Context: Similar legal challenges have arisen in cases where plaintiffs alleged that settlements between government officials and private parties were reached without proper court oversight or congressional approval. For instance, in 2020, a federal judge rejected a settlement in a privacy lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security, citing concerns about the government’s use of taxpayer funds to resolve claims without judicial scrutiny.