President Donald Trump secured a major legal victory as the Internal Revenue Service was barred by the Justice Department from continuing any 'known and unknown' probes into his tax returns. However, US District Judge Kathleen Williams issued an order on Monday afternoon closing the case and questioning whether the government was being transparent about the settlement. According to Politico's Josh Gerstein, Williams wrote that 'there is no settlement of record' in the case, as there was no actual settlement between the parties. The judge expressed frustration with how the settlement was handled, stating that the US has an 'obligation' to uphold the 'public's strong interest in knowing about the conduct of its government and expenditure of its resources' and the 'fair administration of justice'. A 2023 Department of Justice indictment revealed that the Times source was IRS contractor Charles Littlejohn, whom a federal judge later sentenced to five years in prison.
The Trump administration has officially launched a $1.8 billion fund to compensate victims of alleged government 'weaponization' by former President Joe Biden's administration and others. As reported by Business Standard, Blanche stated that Trump won't benefit personally from the fund, yet many of the president's allies and supporters who were investigated in recent years could seek payouts. The fund would receive $1.776 billion from the Judgment Fund, an intragovernmental account funded by taxpayer money that pays out claims against the government. According to the settlement agreement, the commission can authorize payments to those who demonstrate they were targeted for 'improper and unlawful political, personal and/or ideological reasons'. The fund would be administered by five members with a three-person quorum required for any settlements, with the attorney general appointing each member and the president having removal authority without cause.
News organizations across the country embraced Trump's deceptive framing of the fund, with major outlets using terms like 'anti-weaponization fund' and 'slush fund' in their headlines. As reported by Politico, the **Wall Street Journal headlined its article: 'Justice Department Creates Unusual $1.8 Billion 'Anti-Weaponization Fund', while the Washington Post eventually settled on **'Trump's deal to drop suit against IRS creates $1.8B 'Anti-Weaponization Fund'. CNN's Stephen Collinson wrote that the plan is 'a study of his political project in microcosm' and 'a metaphor for a brazen presidency'. The coverage was particularly concerning as The New York Times initially buried the story online and eventually published an article headlined 'Justice Dept. Sets Up $1.8 Billion Fund That Could Funnel Money to Trump Allies' - still failing to clearly identify the fund as potentially illegal and corrupt.
Critics have intensified their opposition to the settlement, with Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, calling the case 'nothing but a racket designed to take $1.7 billion of taxpayer dollars out of the Treasury and pour it into a huge slush fund'. The Department of Justice has responded that filing a claim with the 'Anti-Weaponization Fund' does not have a partisan requirement. However, Harvard University government professor Ryan Enos described it as 'the most brazenly corrupt action in US Presidential history', stating that it doesn't immediately lead to impeachment is a dangerous sign of how far the rule of law has declined. Donald K. Sherman, president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, called it 'one of the single most corrupt acts in American history'. The settlement has opened the administration to criticism from Democrats and ethics groups, with Brandon DeBot, policy director of New York University's Tax Law Center, describing it as 'a breathtaking abuse of the tax and legal system'.
