Ex-Judges Challenge Trump Fund: 35 Former Federal Judges Call $1.776B “Anti-Weaponization” Settlement a “Fraud on the Court”

In a stunning legal development, a coalition of 35 former federal judges has formally asked a federal court to reopen a settled lawsuit between President Donald Trump and the U.S. government — calling the controversial $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” a potential fraud on the judicial system. The move marks one of the most significant legal challenges yet to an arrangement that has drawn swift and bipartisan condemnation across Washington.

What Is the Anti-Weaponization Fund?

The controversy centers on a settlement announced by the Justice Department on May 18, 2026, to resolve a lawsuit filed by President Trump against the Internal Revenue Service. The lawsuit stemmed from the unauthorized leak of Trump’s tax returns by IRS contractor Charles Littlejohn, who later pleaded guilty. As part of the deal, the DOJ established the “Anti-Weaponization Fund” — a $1.776 billion pot of money, drawn from the U.S. Treasury’s Judgment Fund, intended to compensate individuals who claim they were targeted by a “weaponized” government. The specific dollar amount was reportedly chosen as a nod to the year the Declaration of Independence was signed.

The settlement also includes a significant provision granting President Trump, his family, and his business interests broad immunity from future IRS civil enforcement actions related to their tax returns — a term that legal experts have called extraordinary and unprecedented.

Why Are Ex-Judges Calling It a “Fraud on the Court”?

On May 27, 2026, the group of 35 former federal judges filed a motion under Rule 60 asking U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams to reopen the case and investigate whether the settlement constitutes a fraud on the court. The judges argue that the Trump legal team filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal — formally dropping the lawsuit — without any mention of a settlement, and only then did the DOJ announce the sweeping “Anti-Weaponization Fund” arrangement.

In their filing, the judges stated the lawsuit itself “is a fraud on the court,” and that the settlement “was not, and never will be, legally justified.” They further pointed out that the laws Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche invoked to create the fund require the existence of a legitimate legal dispute — not, as they allege, one that is “collusive, feigned, or fraudulent.”

The judges also accused the parties of deceiving Judge Williams, asking that she be permitted to inquire into “whether she was deceived, including with respect to the existence of an underlying case or controversy and any purported arms-length negotiations undertaken to resolve it.”

Who Are the Judges Behind the Challenge?

The coalition spans the ideological spectrum, comprising former trial court and appeals court judges appointed by presidents of both parties. Among the notable figures:

• Ursula Mancusi Ungaro, a George H.W. Bush appointee who once served alongside Judge Kathleen Williams herself.
• Judge John Tinder, who served on a Chicago-based federal appeals court and was later succeeded by now-Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
• Retired Judge Michael Luttig, a Richmond-based federal appeals court judge and prominent Trump critic appointed by President George H.W. Bush.

The bipartisan makeup of the coalition gives the challenge significant legal and moral weight, signaling that objections to the fund are not merely partisan.

The Conflict of Interest at the Core of the Case

Legal observers have raised persistent questions about the fundamental structure of Trump’s original lawsuit against the IRS. Because Trump is simultaneously the plaintiff and, as president, the head of the Executive Branch that oversees the IRS, critics argue the lawsuit was inherently conflicted. Even Trump appeared to acknowledge the awkwardness of the arrangement, reportedly saying, “I’m supposed to work out a settlement with myself.”

The former judges seized on this in their filing, asserting that the “collusive lawsuit” allowed the Trump administration and the DOJ to manufacture legal justification for the fund while bypassing normal judicial oversight.

Bipartisan Backlash in Congress

The Anti-Weaponization Fund has generated fierce opposition not just in the courts, but also on Capitol Hill — and notably, even among Republicans. Senior GOP senators have publicly criticized the deal:

• Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) called it “absurd” that the fund could “potentially compensate someone who assaulted a police officer.”
• Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) described a “slush fund to pay people who assault cops” as “utterly stupid” and “morally wrong.”

Democrats have been equally vocal. Just before Trump dropped his original lawsuit, 93 House Democrats filed their own brief accusing the president of “undermining the Constitution by bringing this collusive suit.” Congressional Democrats have repeatedly referred to the fund as a “slush fund” capable of channeling money to Trump’s political allies.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, when grilled by senators, refused to rule out the possibility that Capitol rioters who assaulted police officers on January 6, 2021, could be eligible to receive payouts from the fund.

Multiple Lawsuits Now Targeting the Fund

The former judges’ challenge is far from the only legal action taken against the fund. A growing wave of litigation is building:

• Two Capitol Police officers who fought against the January 6 rioters filed suit to block the fund, warning it could result in the “public financing of paramilitary organizations.”
• A fired federal prosecutor and a California university professor — represented by the legal advocacy group Democracy Forward — filed suit in federal courts in both Washington, D.C. and Virginia, arguing the fund violates the Administrative Procedure Act and was created with “no congressional authorization, no basis in law, and no accountability.”
• The city of New Haven, Connecticut, joined as a plaintiff in one of those suits.
• Watchdog groups and outside lawyers have also filed briefs challenging the arrangement as a conflict of interest.

The DOJ’s Defense

The Justice Department has pushed back against the mounting criticism. Spokesperson Natalie Baldassarre issued a statement Wednesday saying it is “a routine move for plaintiffs to dismiss cases without referencing any settlement,” and called the judges’ motion “frivolous,” insisting “there is nothing improper about this agreement.”

President Trump, meanwhile, framed the fund as an act of justice for those wronged by political persecution, posting that he was “helping others, who were so badly abused by an evil, corrupt, and weaponized Biden Administration, receive, at long last, JUSTICE!”

What Happens Next?

The ball is now in U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams’ court — literally. Williams, an Obama appointee, had already signaled last month that she was considering whether to look into the circumstances surrounding the lawsuit’s dismissal. The former judges’ motion gives her a formal vehicle to reopen the case and conduct that inquiry under Rule 60.

If she grants the motion, the court could scrutinize whether there was ever a genuine legal dispute between Trump and his own government, and whether the settlement process sidestepped judicial oversight in a manner that corrupts the integrity of the court. The outcome could have major implications not just for the $1.776 billion fund, but for the broader question of how far a sitting president can use the levers of government — including the DOJ — to benefit himself and his allies.

This legal battle is just getting started — follow along as it unfolds and share your thoughts below: do you think the courts will succeed in scrutinizing the Anti-Weaponization Fund, or is this the new normal in American politics?