Oh, the actual number if $1776B which makes it extra disgusting
Repulsive Trump wants to call this a *settlement* but it cannot be since he decided today to drop the lawsuit (He would undoubtedly have lost this so he was fishing around for another way to fleece the public while padding his own pockets. Look farther down for the Techdirt link about this. And here’s the docket
Adding for all the faux *christians* that support this guy and presumably are also behind putting the 10 commandments, you’ll be able to use Trump as the example for “Do Not Steal” and the kind of creep that does it.
@claytoonz.bsky.social 🤬🤬🤬
— Xela Hart (@xelahart.bsky.social) May 18, 2026 at 4:53 PM
[image or embed]
DOJ announces 1.8B (1.776B if that doesn't make you puke) fund for victims of lawfare/weaponization, supposedly as part of Trump settlement. but That's 100% improper as a settlement of Trump's bogus lawsuit. Can only settle viable lawsuits, and htis is isn't one. This is going to be a fight.
— Harry Litman (@harrylitman.bsky.social) May 18, 2026 at 11:00 AM
Trump's DOJ is funneling your tax dollars to a slush fund to pay off Trump's buddies & allies, like rioters who stormed the Capitol & assaulted police on Jan 6th. An outrageous abuse of power.
— Senator Chris Van Hollen (@vanhollen.senate.gov) May 18, 2026 at 2:08 PM
[image or embed]
Here is Techdirt with a detailed breakdown of this corruption – Trump Just Created An Unconstitutional $1.776 Billion Loyalty Rewards Program For MAGA and includes the *settlement* itself with its terms) Read the whole thing but I highlighted some important corrupt red flags. The PDF of the settlement is in this article.
What will the fund be used for? To pay anyone on Team MAGA — including, in theory, January 6th insurrectionists — who claim the Biden administration “weaponized” the government to target them. Many of these claims are simply not true. January 6th insurrectionists were arrested and convicted for actually breaking the law. But now they get to ask Trump for money, and the evidentiary standard appears to be “trust me, bro” and a red MAGA hat.
Let’s first dispense with the most obvious bit of the charade: the idea that this is actually related to the “settlement” of Trump’s already corrupt bullshit lawsuit against the IRS. That’s how this is being presented, but this is entirely separate. Trump needed to drop that lawsuit in order to end it before a judge called bullshit on the fact that he was negotiating with himself to take $10 billion from American taxpayers.
As for the actual “fund” everything about it is about as corrupt as you can imagine. This is impeachment-worthy — and not in a partisan way. Republicans should be as offended by this as anyone else, if they actually (I know… I know…) believe in things like rule of law and fiscal responsibility.
The actual details here should raise so many red flags. First, as part of this illegal attempt to route around Congress’ power of the purse, they’re taking the money out of the Treasury Department’s “Judgment Fund.” But that fund is clearly designed to pay out the results of duly litigated court cases against the government — not a board of Trump’s friends deciding who gets a check. But here, it’s just a group of MAGA insiders who get to choose:
The Fund will consist of five members appointed by the Attorney General. One Member will be chosen in consultation with congressional leadership. The President can remove any member, but a replacement must be chosen the same way as the replaced member was selected.
So, the fund is clearly in service of Donald Trump’s whims, not anyone else’s. We already have his personal lawyer (who has shown a long history of obeying Trump’s orders) as the acting Attorney General, and the fact that Congress only gets to “consult” on one member of the committee, and anyone can be removed by Trump at any moment makes it abundantly clear that this fund is solely around to pay off Trump’s loyal fans, who have a long history of claiming imagined grievances against the Biden administration, which they will now seek to cash in on.
The fund also, notably, will be put into a private account that (according to the settlement) the US government has no control over and no liability for.
Once the funds are deposited into the Designated Account, the United States has no liability whatsoever for the protection or safeguarding of those funds, regardless of bank failure, fraudulent transfers, or any other fraud or misuse of the funds.
This appears to be setting things up so that a future government (or a court) cannot claw back the money once it is delivered from the Treasury into this slush fund, let alone after it is then handed out to anyone on Team MAGA who makes a claim from the fund.
If this were a Democratic president, literally every newspaper in America would be calling for his/her impeachment TODAY. As would basically all Republicans, and a lot of Democrats too. But it's Trump, so they're all like…whatever. bluevirginia.us/2026/05/mond… h/t @fritschner.bsky.social
— Blue Virginia (@bluevirginia.bsky.social) May 18, 2026 at 3:30 PM
[image or embed]
Congress is fighting back against this. Exhibit A, part of which I included below
The President is attempting to undermine the Constitution by bringing this collusive suit
against the federal government contrary to the requirement that federal courts may only hear
“Cases” or “Controversies.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. Congress has enacted laws governing
the specific circumstances under which individuals and entities may sue the United States for
unauthorized disclosure of their tax return information. The Department of Justice (“DOJ”) is
entrusted with defending the United States against claims under these laws and ensuring that the
statutory requirements are met before money is paid. Here, however, the DOJ has colluded with
President Trump and his allies and, in so doing, abdicated these responsibilities. The parties’
actions, therefore, have frustrated Congress’ purpose in enacting these laws.
Moreover, Congress has a strong interest in ensuring that the Executive Branch properly
guards the public fisc. That includes complying with the Constitution’s commands that “[a]ll Bills
for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives,” U.S. Const. art. I, § 7, cl. 1,
“[n]o Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by
Law . . . ,” id. art. I, § 9, cl. 7, and forbidding the President from “receiv[ing] within [his term] any
other Emolument from the United States” than compensation approved by Congress, id. art. II, §
1, cl 7. Should this lawsuit achieve Plaintiffs’ desired ends, it would result in the improper and
unconstitutional transfer of taxpayer dollars into the pockets of the President, his family, and his
allies. Having taken oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution, the movants cannot stand by and
let the Constitution’s provisions and prohibitions, including the express bar on Presidential
profiteering, go ignored.
With this brief, amici aim to assist the Court by explaining why this matter is a collusive
suit that fails Article III’s case or controversy requirement. They bring the unique perspective of
current members of Congress in a lawsuit that raises serious questions about the separation of
powers, the Origination Clause, the Appropriations Clause, and the Emoluments Clause. No
person, other than amici curiae and their counsel, authored this brief in whole or in part or
contributed funds intended to fund the preparing or submitting of this brief.
INTRODUCTION
President Donald J. Trump, his sons, and the Trump Organization (belatedly) filed this
lawsuit, alleging that the disclosure of their tax return information by Charles Littlejohn, a
government contractor who leaked tax return information associated with more than 400,000
taxpayers, somehow caused the President and his sons $10 billion in damages. Never in the history
of the United States has a sitting President sought a monetary settlement from the government he
leads—let alone sought many billions of dollars in taxpayer funds. The President seeks damages
from the citizens he purports to represent equal to nearly the entire budget he proposed for the
Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) itself. $10 billion could fully fund almost the entire annual
budget for federal child welfare spending or the National Cancer Institute for a year. Or it could
be used to purchase childcare for a million young families. Instead of serving these worthy
purposes, the President instead asks this Court to allow him to use collusive litigation to force the
American people to put that money into his pockets, and the pockets of his family and friends.
This Court appropriately recognized the extraordinary nature of this suit in which a sitting
President seeks to coerce agencies he controls to pay him taxpayer money. It ordered briefing on
whether the case presented a “Case” or “Controversy” under Article III of the Constitution,
including through the appointment of amici to assist the Court in identifying the applicable law
governing this issue. ECF No. 41; ECF No. 43. Since then, public reporting has indicated that
Plaintiffs and Defendants (represented by the DOJ under leadership appointed by President Trump
himself) are negotiating a settlement.1
The unprecedented posture of this suit fundamentally disregards Article III’s case or
controversy requirement and raises the specter of corruption unparalleled in American history. No
controversy can exist when the plaintiff controls the defendant, as President Trump does here, nor….
A. President Trump Is on Both Sides of This Litigation.
In this case, there is no distinction between Donald Trump as President and Donald Trump
in his “personal capacity.”4 Compl. ¶ 1. Instead, the President has repeatedly claimed far-reaching
Executive power and frequently sought to use that power to further his own personal interests. He
cannot pretend that officials at the IRS and the Department of the Treasury—and their lawyers at
the DOJ—operate independently from him for purposes of this case.
The President has continually asserted a maximalist view of his own Executive authority,
foreclosing any possible argument that the agencies appearing here as Defendants have autonomy
or independence from him. Only a month after assuming office, he issued an Executive Order
stating that “executive branch officials,” “remain subject to the President’s ongoing supervision
and control.” Exec. Order No. 14215, § 1, 90 Fed. Reg. 10447, 10448 (Feb. 24, 2025). The Order
also proclaimed that “[t]he President and the Attorney General, subject to the President’s
supervision and control, shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive….
The agencies named as Defendants here are subject to that Executive Order. The Secretary
of the Treasury is a member of the President’s Cabinet and, therefore, his “alter ego.” Myers v.
United States, 272 U.S. 52, 133 (1926). The IRS Commissioner is appointed by the President, and
the President may remove him at will. 26 U.S.C. §§ 7803(a)(1)(B), (D). Just last year, President
Trump exercised his authority to remove the IRS Commissioner only two months after the
Commissioner was confirmed to the position.5
Similarly, through the Executive Order and in other ways, the President has exerted far-
reaching control over the DOJ, which should be defending the present suit and has the primary
responsibility to determine what arguments will be made and whether settlement would be
appropriate and in the interests of the United States. President Trump has fired his Attorney
General, forced out United States Attorneys of whom he disapproved, and refused to replace
United States Attorneys through the statutorily-mandated confirmation process.6 He has invoked
his Executive power under the Constitution to fire line attorneys without cause.7 And, he has
ordered DOJ officials to prosecute his perceived political adversaries.8 As a symbolic
epresentation of President Trump’s complete control over the DOJ, a banner portraying his face
now hangs outside the Main Justice building in Washington, D.C.
The DOJ has also made clear that it welcomes direct control by President Trump. Guidance
issued to DOJ lawyers shortly after President Trump took office warned that they could face
discipline if they “deprive[d] the President of the benefit of his lawyers.”9 In public statements,
former Attorney General Pam Bondi vowed to root out DOJ employees who were insufficiently
loyal to President Trump.10 Current officials at the highest levels of the DOJ have also affirmed
their allegiance to President Trump’s personal interests. For example, Todd Blanche, the Acting
Attorney General, was President Trump’s personal lawyer prior to assuming office. After joining
the DOJ, Mr. Blanche was told by the DOJ’s “top ethics lawyer” that Mr. Blanche should recuse
himself from cases involving President Trump in his personal capacity; that official was fired in
July.11 Mr. Blanche has bragged about firing individuals who worked on the criminal prosecutions
of President Trump,12 even declaring that these purges were consistent with ethical duties.13 He
has defended President Trump’s micromanagement of the DOJ, including his directives related to
criminal prosecutions—stating that such communications “should make every American happy.
Upon assuming the Acting Attorney General role, one of Mr. Blanche’s first public statements was:
“I love working for President Trump.”15
And if it were not entirely clear the degree to which he exercises control over the DOJ, the
President has even outright admitted that he views this case as an opportunity to control both sides
of the negotiation and obtain a windfall at the expense of the American taxpayer. Days after the
suit was filed, President Trump told the press “I’m supposed to work out a settlement with
myself.”16 When asked in a different interview what he would tell Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent
and then-Attorney General Bondi, President Trump stated that he would “tell ’em to pay me.”17
Yet, the parties want this Court to believe the farce that the DOJ can faithfully and independently
litigate the claims brought by President Trump and his relatives…..
The DOJ Lacks Authority to Settle This Collusive Suit.
If this Court determines that this is a collusive suit that fails to meet Article III’s case or
controversy requirement, see supra Section I, the DOJ would also lack legal authority to settle it
on behalf of the Defendant agencies or the United States. Recent public reporting indicates that
the DOJ is considering settling this suit instead of responding to this Court’s order regarding
whether this case is wanting in jurisdiction.26 That would be unlawful for several reasons.
First, the DOJ lacks statutory and constitutional authority to settle this collusive suit.
Congress’ appropriations to the Judgment Fund, 31 U.S.C. § 1304, come with specific constraints
that foreclose such a corrupt settlement. One of those express constraints is that “compromise
settlements” are only authorized when the settlement is payable pursuant to specific statutes,
including the Settlements Authority Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2414, and other statutes not applicable
here. Crucially, under § 2414, the Attorney General has authority only to make “compromise
settlements of claims . . . for defense of imminent litigation or suits against the United States, or
against its agencies or officials upon obligations or liabilities of the United States . . . .” The
regulation enumerating the Department of the Treasury’s authority for certifying payment from the
Judgment Fund, 31 C.F.R. § 256.1, is in accord: Congress only authorizes “settlement of claims
arising under actual or imminent litigation . . . .” Id. at § 256.1(b) (“Fiscal Service requires that
requests for payment identify the statute that forms the basis of the underlying claim. The award
or settlement must comply with the statutory and regulatory requirements that authorize the award
or settlement.”).
But a feigned or collusive suit over which no court has jurisdiction—to say nothing about
one that has been voluntarily dismissed to avoid a jurisdictional ruling—is not “actual or imminent
litigation.” As the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) explains, the statement in § 2414
“for defense of imminent litigation or suits against the United States” requires that “[t]he agency
must be confronted with a genuine disagreement or impasse . . . . There must be a legitimate dispute
over either liability or amount.” U.S. Gov’t Accountability Off., GAO-08-978SP, 3 Principles of
Federal Appropriations Law 14-35 (3d ed. 2008) (emphasis added). After all, “the Judgment Fund
is limited to litigative awards, meaning awards that were or could have been made in a court.”
Vivian S. Chu & Brian T. Yeh, Cong. Research Serv., R42835, The Judgment Fund: History,
Administration, and Common Usage 6 (2013) (emphasis added)). Because this collusive suit is not
a legitimate dispute, and because the award could not have been made in a court, the Judgment
Fund is not available and there is no appropriation to settle these claims.
While the Attorney General undoubtedly has broad settlement discretion, that power must
be exercised in a “manner that conforms to the specific statutory limits that Congress has imposed
upon its exercise.
This is certainly a scenario in which settlement would violate constitutional separation of
powers. The Appropriations Clause, which provides in relevant part that “[n]o Money shall be
drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law,” U.S. Const. art. I,
§ 9, cl. 7, imposes a strict “restriction upon the disbursing authority of the Executive department,”
Cincinnati Soap Co. v. United States, 301 U.S. 308, 321 (1937); see also Reeside v. Walker, 52
U.S. (11 How.) 272, 291 (1850) (“It is a well-known constitutional provision, that no money can
be taken or drawn from the Treasury except under an appropriation by Congress.”). That restriction
surely applies to an ultra vires disbursement of taxpayer dollars to the President for a lawsuit that
both lacks any basis in federal jurisdiction and is substantively meritless.
Second, any settlement—monetary or otherwise—would violate the Domestic
Emoluments Clause of the Constitution. Article II, Section 1, Clause 7 provides that: “The
President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be
encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not
receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.” A
settlement payment, especially for an unmeritorious claim, “within [the] Period” of the Presidential
term in office is a straightforward violation of the Domestic Emoluments Clause. See D.C. v.
Trump, 315 F. Supp. 3d 875, 889 (D. Md. 2018), vacated as moot, 838 F. App’x 789 (4th Cir. 2021)
(after extensive textual and historical analysis, finding that the term “emolument” in both the
Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clause “should be interpreted broadly to mean ‘profit,’ ‘gain,’
or ‘advantage,’ essentially covering anything of value); Blumenthal v. Trump, 373 F. Supp. 3d 191,
196 (D.D.C. 2019), vacated as moot, 949 F.3d 14 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (same). And settlement
payments to the President’s family or his business that lack a legal basis are no less violative of
the Domestic Emoluments Clause. See id.
Third, should any settlement include a provision that the IRS drop any audits of President
Trump, his family, and his businesses, as public reporting has suggested is in contemplation,27 that
would also exceed the DOJ’s authority and would trigger additional prohibitions. For one, the tax
liabilities of the President, his family, and his businesses are not at issue in the instant Complaint.
The DOJ, therefore, has no authority to enter a compromise settlement in an IRS audit not referred
to the Department for prosecution or defense. 26 U.S.C. § 7122(a). And based on publicly available
sources, the IRS has not done so. For another, 26 U.S.C. § 7217 expressly prohibits the President
from “request[ing], directly or indirectly, any officer or employee of the Internal Revenue Service
to conduct or terminate an audit or other investigation of any particular taxpayer with respect to
the tax liability of such taxpayer.” Violations of this provision are criminal and carry up to five
years imprisonment and/or a fine as punishment. Id. § 7217(d).
Fourth, any purported settlement that includes the creation of a commission to compensate
other individuals with similarly meritless claims against the government would also be
constitutionally and statutorily inapposite. Indeed, recent reports indicate that President Trump
intends to voluntarily dismiss this litigation in exchange for the creation of a $1.7 billion fund to
compensate “anyone who alleges they were harmed by the Biden administration . . . .”28 That
approach would be plainly unlawful because any such claimants would not be involved in actual
or imminent litigation against the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2414. Further, third parties
making such allegations do not have claims related to the statutory causes of action at issue in this
case, which would render any settlement of this kind an unlawful “compromise settlement” of
Judgment Fund monies. Id. And, most importantly, Congress has not authorized any fund, much
less one involving billions of taxpayer dollars, for these purposes. So, any such payment would
clearly violate the Appropriations Clause. U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 7.
Here’s Rep Raskin talking about this
