A federal judge has reopened Donald Trump's $10 million lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), expressing a desire to investigate whether its resolution was 'premised on deception.' Judge 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.
Judge Blocks Fund Payments
However, a different judge has now blocked payments from the 'Anti-weaponization fund' pending litigation over the legality of its existence. The administration created the fund to resolve Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax returns and said it would be used to help those who faced political persecution.
US District Judge Leonie Brinkema, a Bill Clinton appointee, halted the fund's 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.
Republican Opposition
According to The Wall Street Journal, at least a dozen Republican Senators now want Trump to drop the fund as well as the suit. Top aides are exploring the possibility of promising to eliminate the fund in exchange for funding the President's immigration crackdown.
A Justice Department spokesperson expressed 'extreme confidence' that the fund is legally supported 'by ample precedent,' including from settlements during the Obama administration. 'We will not allow the policy preferences of judges to interfere with our efforts to provide restitution to victims of lawfare,' the spokesperson said.
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 arguments in favor of freezing the fund's creation and operation.
Backlash and Legal Challenges
The fund has generated fierce backlash since its announcement, with even Republicans pressing acting Attorney General Todd Blanche over eligibility considerations and the possibility that violent rioters at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, could seek compensation. The Justice Department has not yet formed the five-member commission to decide payout criteria, so no money has been disbursed.
Plaintiffs' attorneys from Democracy Forward seek a court order halting the fund's implementation and preventing any payouts. 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.'
Brinkema emphasized the importance of maintaining the status quo for at least two weeks to ensure no funds are 'irreversibly disbursed.' Her order temporarily prohibits transferring money to the fund, considering claims, or disbursing funds from it.
Plaintiffs and Lawsuits
The Virginia lawsuit includes plaintiffs such as 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 states. At least two other lawsuits in Washington also challenge the fund's creation.
A lawsuit by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington calls the fund 'a jaw-dropping act of presidential corruption.' Two police officers who defended the Capitol from a mob of Trump supporters also sued last week. During a congressional hearing, Blanche would not rule out that rioters who assaulted police on Jan 6 could be eligible for payouts.
Nearly 1,600 people were charged with Capitol riot-related federal crimes, with over 1,200 convicted and sentenced before Trump issued mass pardons and dismissed pending cases last year. One plaintiff, former Assistant US Attorney Andrew Floyd, who prosecuted Capitol riot cases, 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,' Floyd said. Another plaintiff is professor Jonathan Caravello, acquitted of throwing a tear gas canister at federal agents during a 2025 protest.
The Daily Mail has reached out to the White House for comment.
