35 Former Judges Urge Fraud Inquiry Into Trump’s IRS Settlement
A bipartisan group of 35 former federal judges has filed a motion in federal court seeking to reopen President Donald Trump’s lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service, alleging that the $1.776 billion settlement that created an “Anti-Weaponization Fund” was an act of “fraud on the court.” The motion, filed on May 27 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, represents an extraordinary judicial intervention into a case that has sparked bipartisan backlash across Washington.
The Motion and Its Core Allegations
The former judges, led by retired U.S. Circuit Judge J. Michael Luttig — a prominent conservative who served as a key witness in the January 6 committee hearings — filed the 24-page motion under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows a federal court to set aside a judgment over fraud against the court. The judges argue that Trump and his legal team deliberately kept the court in the dark about the settlement when they filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal.
“The Court was deceived,” the motion states, as reported by USA Today. The filing contends that the settlement “commandeers the contrived sum of $1.776 billion from the United States Treasury, to be handed out to recipients chosen by a commission effectively controlled by the President.”
According to The Guardian, the judges wrote that “this ‘settlement’ is a product of collusion and is itself a fraud on the Court.” They further argued that “the parties here dismissed this case before the Court could complete its inquiry into whether there was an actual case or controversy, and then cited their ‘settlement’ of this case as the legal justification for looting the federal treasury of $1.776bn.”
Background: From Leaked Tax Returns to a Billion-Dollar Fund
The controversy traces back to January 2026, when Trump, his sons, and the Trump Organization sued the IRS and Treasury Department for at least $10 billion, alleging the agencies failed to prevent former IRS contractor Charles Littlejohn from leaking Trump’s tax returns to The New York Times. Littlejohn was sentenced to five years in prison in January 2024 for the leak, which revealed that Trump paid no federal income taxes in 10 of the 15 years before his 2016 election.
In May 2026, the Department of Justice, under Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche — Trump’s former personal attorney — agreed to settle the case by creating the $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund.” The number is widely seen as a reference to 1776, the year of American independence. Trump voluntarily withdrew the lawsuit before Judge Kathleen Williams, an Obama appointee, could rule on its merits.
Mediaite reported that the settlement also included an “extremely broad provision” releasing Trump, his family members, and his companies from any and all IRS audits or other federal claims — “extraordinary benefits for which no consideration was provided to the government.”
Unprecedented Bipartisan Judicial Action
The list of 35 former judges includes figures appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents, underscoring the bipartisan nature of the concern. Among them are Luttig, a conservative who endorsed Kamala Harris in 2024; former U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner; and former U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin. The judges wrote that they filed the motion “because they have dedicated their professional lives to the administration of justice,” warning that the settlement “threatens to undermine confidence in the administration of justice.”
Broader Fallout and Opposition
The fund has drawn criticism from across the political spectrum. Republican senators including Thom Tillis have called it “stupid on stilts” and “a galactic blunder.” The Senate last week held up a $72 billion Trump-backed immigration enforcement bill over concerns about the fund. An Economist/YouGov poll found that 52% of Republicans and 45% of self-identified MAGA supporters oppose the fund.
Two Capitol police officers who defended the Capitol during the January 6 attack — Harry Dunn and Daniel Hodges — have sued to block the fund, calling it “the most brazen act of presidential corruption this century.” California Gov. Gavin Newsom has vowed to impose a 100% tax on fund payouts to California residents, and New York Assemblymember Alex Bores has proposed similar legislation.
What Happens Next
Judge Kathleen Williams must now decide whether to grant the motion to reopen the case. If she does, the court could investigate whether “fraud on the court” occurred — a finding that would represent a severe breach of legal ethics. The judges have cited a unanimous 2025 Supreme Court ruling that a Rule 60 review is permissible even after a voluntary dismissal has been filed.
The motion raises fundamental constitutional questions about executive power: Can a president sue his own administration and then settle the case on terms that create a multi-billion dollar fund without congressional approval? The fund bypasses Congress’s power of the purse, potentially violating the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution.
As the legal battle unfolds, the Anti-Weaponization Fund remains operational — but its future now hangs in the balance, awaiting a judge’s decision on whether the court itself was deceived.