Miami, 29 May 2026

U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams launched an inquiry on Friday into a settlement between Donald Trump and the IRS that created a $1.8 billion 'anti-weaponization' fund, freezing the fund and ordering Trump's lawyers to respond to fraud allegations by June 12.

The Settlement and Its Critics

The Miami-based judge, appointed by President Barack Obama, had closed the lawsuit on her docket the previous week after Trump's lawyers notified her they were dropping claims seeking to hold the IRS liable for a past leak of his tax information.

The closure came after the Justice Department announced it would create a $1.776 billion fund to benefit victims of government weaponisation in exchange for Trump ending the case. The deal also includes a bar on investigations into Trump's past tax returns.

The settlement has drawn sharp criticism from opponents who have characterized the arrangement as a 'slush fund' for Trump's allies and supporters. At least four lawsuits have been filed objecting to the plan since it was announced earlier this month.

The developing scandal has drawn bipartisan outrage on Capitol Hill, with government watchdogs and courts receiving demands for further investigation into the matter.

Judicial Intervention

A federal judge in Virginia has already temporarily barred the Trump administration from operating the anti-weaponisation fund while weighing a longer-term block.

The inquiry was prompted by a request from 35 former federal judges who urged the court to reopen the case. The former judges alleged that Trump's lawsuit effort amounted to 'serious misconduct' and an abuse of the court system.

The former federal judges asked the court to investigate conduct by the president and the Justice Department, arguing that the settlement was the result of fraud on the court.

What Comes Next

Judge Williams gave Trump's personal lawyers until June 12 to respond to the request by the former judges to reopen the proceedings.

Multiple lawsuits have been filed aimed at blocking the fund, with opponents arguing it lacks proper oversight and could be used to reward political allies.

The case highlights ongoing tensions between the judiciary and the executive branch over the use of legal settlements to create large, discretionary funds outside the normal congressional appropriations process.