Trump Anti-Weaponization Fund Nullified: Judge Refers His Own Lawyer to the Florida Bar A federal judge has thrown out, in its entirety, a settlement that would have created a $1.8 billion taxpayer-funded compensation program tied directly to president trump and along the way, referred his personal attorney for possible professional discipline.
How the Fund Was Created
the story starts with an unusual lawsuit. in january 2026, trump sued the internal revenue service an agency operating under his own administration seeking $10 billion in damages over the leak of his tax returns during his first term.
that lawsuit was dismissed at the parties’ request in may. what emerged in its place was the anti-weaponization fund: a $1.776 billion pool of taxpayer money, administered through the department of justice, intended to compensate people who claim to have been unfairly targeted by “weaponized” government prosecution.
acting attorney general todd blanche did not rule out the possibility that participants in the january 6, 2021 capitol attack could be eligible to apply for payments. more than 1,500 people were charged in connection with that day before trump issued sweeping pardons on his first day back in office.
the settlement also contained a second component that drew less public attention but arguably mattered more: an immunity agreement shielding trump, his family, and his businesses from future IRS scrutiny of tax returns already on file.
The Judge’s 56-Page Ruling
US district judge kathleen williams issued a 56-page order nullifying the entire settlement. her language was unambiguous.
“the nature of the suit itself and the conduct of the parties and counsel from its filing make plain that this was an attempt to use the court to provide some legitimacy to an agreement to confer immunity to people and entities affiliated with the president and to earmark billions of dollars from american taxpayers to redress grievances not defined in the law,” williams wrote.
she went further, ruling that trump, the treasury department, and the IRS were all prohibited from citing or relying on the settlement in any official proceeding going forward meaning it cannot be used, for example, to block a future audit or enforcement action.
williams also noted the timing was telling: trump “did not pursue his claims until he once again occupied the white house and had appointed his former lawyer” a reference to todd blanche, who represented trump personally in his criminal cases before becoming acting attorney general “to prominent positions.”
The Lawyer Referral
perhaps the most consequential detail in the ruling is what williams did with trump’s attorney.
she referred alejandro brito, the lawyer who represented trump in the underlying IRS lawsuit, to the florida bar for possible professional discipline. bar referrals from federal judges are not issued casually they signal that a judge believes an attorney’s conduct in a case may have crossed ethical lines.
norm eisen, an attorney with the democracy defenders fund who has tracked the litigation, said the ruling “knocked out any legal basis for the $1.8 billion fund and undermined the accompanying settlements.”
A Second Judge Had Already Blocked It
williams’ ruling wasn’t the first legal blow to the fund. in a separate case, US district judge leonie brinkema of the eastern district of virginia had already entered an order temporarily blocking the fund’s creation and operation, after a january 6 prosecutor and the watchdog group citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington sued.
brinkema later extended that block indefinitely, even after blanche told congress the administration was scrapping the fund amid bipartisan backlash the plaintiffs’ attorneys argued his assurances weren’t sufficient without a binding court order.
two federal judges. two separate lawsuits. the same result the fund cannot move forward.
Why Both Parties Objected
what made the anti-weaponization fund unusual wasn’t just its size it was the near-total absence of a political constituency defending it. democrats called it a slush fund designed to reward trump loyalists at taxpayer expense. many republicans, uncomfortable with the idea of compensating january 6 defendants specifically, distanced themselves from it as well.
new haven mayor justin elicker, whose city was among the plaintiffs, said the ruling affirmed “what new haveners and americans across the country recognized from the moment the trump administration announced its so-called ‘anti-weaponization fund’: that this is an improper, illegal and unconstitutional use of federal taxpayer dollars created to reward president trump’s political allies.”
What Happens to the $1.8 Billion Now
with the settlement nullified, no money has been paid out and no claims commission was ever formally established — the justice department had not yet appointed the five-member panel that would have decided payout criteria before the legal challenges began.
the underlying question of trump’s original lawsuit over the leaked tax returns remains legally unresolved, since the case was dismissed rather than decided on the merits. what’s now void is the settlement that followed it.
Trump Anti-Weaponization Fund Nullified The Bottom Line
a president sued an agency of his own government. his own justice department settled the case. the settlement would have sent $1.8 billion in taxpayer money into a fund with almost no public oversight, potentially benefiting people convicted of storming the capitol, while separately shielding the president’s own finances from future scrutiny.
a federal judge called that arrangement exactly what it looked like, voided it in a 56-page order, and referred the president’s own lawyer for possible discipline.
follow this blog for updates as the legal fallout from this ruling continues.
