Stop the
SLUSH FUND
Trump sued his own IRS for $10B — then "settled" with his former personal lawyer, now Acting AG, for $1.776B of your tax dollars.
HALLMARKS OF A SLUSH FUND.
No Congressional Vote
Zero dollars authorized by Congress
NO JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT
Settlement never approved by a federal court
Removable Commissioners
President can remove any member without cause
NO PUBLIC REPORTING
Only confidential reports to the AG who created it.
IF YOU ONLY READ THREE THINGS.
- 01 President Trump sued his own IRS for $10 billion, over a leak of tax documents he promised to release.
- 02 His Acting Attorney General settled on behalf of the government, creating a $1.776B fund with no judicial or congressional oversight (aka a "slush fund").
- 03 If allowed, this settlement would set a precedent for ALL future presidents to usurp unlimited public funds without Congressional approval.
THE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.
"I'm supposed to work out a settlement with myself."
— President Donald Trump
both sides
Directed nearly $2B settlement
"It is unclear to this Court whether the Parties are sufficiently adverse to each other so as to satisfy Article III’s case or controversy requirement.”
It is as if somebody sued themselves and agreed upon a settlement with themselves that's going to be funded by the rest of us.
How it happened.
All on the public record. This story isn't over.
Trump "was essentially suing himself, and the lawyers tasked with defending the other side worked for him.”LAWFARE ANALYSIS
- Trump and co-plaintiffs will receive a formal apology from the U.S. but no monetary payments
- Creation of the $1,776,000,000 “Anti-Weaponization Fund”
The settlement alleges that the fund’s dollar amount is “based on the projected valuation of future claimants’ claims.” The valuation just happens to reflect America’s founding year by coincidence.
What this settlement claims to remedy
- The IRS tax return leak (primary claim)
- Federal Tort Claims Act claims for the Mar-a-Lago raid (Aug. 2022) and Russia investigation (Trump's first term)
- Claims of others who "incurred harm from similar Lawfare and Weaponization"
The day after the DOJ announces the settlement, an additional order appears on their website, signed by Acting AG Blanche. It was discovered when reporters noticed a new PDF in the existing DOJ announcement.
The short document declares that the U.S. is "forever barred and precluded" from pursuing any "examinations or similar or related reviews" of tax returns filed by President Trump, his family, and affiliated businesses — as well as any matters "currently pending or that could be pending."
Critics question Blanche's authority to issue such a sweeping order and whether it is intended to shield his former client from a suspected $100 million tax liability.
Media coverage · PBS NewsHourQUESTION What would prevent additional settlement orders from appearing on DOJ's website, at any time, of any scope? Do the legislative or judicial branches have any check on ostensibly self-serving executive "settlements"?
- E.D. Virginia: Judge Leonie M. Brinkema issues a full injunction — the fund cannot receive money, process claims, or disburse a dollar. Hearing: June 12, 2026.
- S.D. Florida: Judge Kathleen M. Williams orders the Trump team to respond to fraud-on-the-court allegations stemming from the 35 judges' motion.
- Rep. DeLauro (D-CT): Implored Blanche to rescind the order shielding Trump's family and businesses from IRS auditing. Blanche refused.
- Rep. Meng (D-NY): Implored Blanche to rescind his Anti-Weaponization Fund order in writing as his verbal statements were not under oath. Blanche refused.
"I'm not committing to put anything in writing."
Acting AG Todd BlancheHouse Appropriations
June 2, 2026
Bessent declines to comment and defers to the DOJ, citing ongoing litigation.
“My concern is this addendum isn't getting a lot of attention.”
Senator Luján to Sec. of Treasury BessentJune 3, 2026
-
Schumer motion Failed: 49–50Would have sent the bill back to committee with instructions to add a permanent ban. Three Republicans broke with their party to support it: Sens. Susan Collins (ME), Dan Sullivan (AK), and Jon Husted (OH) — all facing competitive races in November.
-
Tillis amendment Failed: 15–84Would have prohibited the fund and redirected the $1.7 billion to fraud enforcement. Supported by 12 Republicans but opposed by nearly all Democrats, who argued it would simply create a new executive-controlled slush fund under a different name.
The fund is still under an injunction order, and it may be struck down in court, but many congressional members are concerned that no statutory prohibition on the fund exists.
"I don't know any rational basis for letting this stay on the books. Otherwise, you're exposing every one of our members who are in cycle to having to deal with this between today and election day."
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) · June 4, 2026"It's heinous and it won't die until we permanently ban it by law."
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) · June 4, 2026President Trump announces his intent to nominate Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche to serve as attorney general permanently. If confirmed, Blanche — the president's former criminal defense attorney — would formally become the nation's highest-ranking legal officer.
-
Coons amendment Failed: 54–4560 requiredWould have barred anyone convicted of assaulting a law enforcement officer during J6 Capitol attack from receiving a fund payout. Despite being a targeted restriction, Senate Republicans blocked it — even though eight of them voted in favor: Sens. Cassidy, Collins, Husted, Moody, Moran, Murkowski, Sullivan, and Tillis.
-
Cassidy/Van Hollen amendment Failed: 53–4660 requiredWould have redirected the $1.776B fund to law enforcement officers injured during J6 Capitol attack. Floor action slowed for several hours as Sen. Cassidy held talks with the Senate parliamentarian, who ultimately ruled the amendment required 60 votes, virtually guaranteeing its defeat. Only six Republicans voted for it.
The ICE/CBP bill now heads to the House, where three bills targeting the Anti-Weaponization Fund remain in play.
The DOJ filed opposition briefs in Floyd v. DOJ and CREW v. DOJ. Rather than defend the fund on the merits, the government’s primary argument was that both cases are now moot, stating — for the first time in writing — that the fund “had not been set up and is now not going forward.” The briefs, signed by Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, ask both judges to dismiss the cases entirely, arguing there is no longer a live controversy before the courts.
IS THE SETTLEMENT EVEN LEGAL?
The legality is now before federal courts. A judge has already enjoined the government from touching a dollar while the cases are heard.
"No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of Appropriations made by Law."
Three lawsuits. Three courts. One injunction.
Challenges are being litigated in the Eastern District of Virginia, the District of D.C., and the Southern District of Florida — covering constitutional violations, APA violations, the Federal Records Act, and potential fraud on the court.
Courts, not this site, will determine the outcome. All legal positions are presented as active proceedings.
He PROMISED to release them.
President Trump's initial $10B claim rested on "reputational and financial harm" from a tax document leak. Yet he repeatedly promised, on the record, to release those exact documents.
OBSERVATION Trump sought $10 billion in damages for the release of documents that he wanted to release.
"If I decide to run for office, I'll produce my tax returns, absolutely. And I would love to do that."
DONALD TRUMP, MAY 2014IRELAND'S TV3 INTERVIEW
In interview I told @AP that my taxes are under routine audit and I would release my tax returns when audit is complete, not after election!
A 2022 Congressional report found Trump was not under audit when he made these statements.
"I don't mind releasing. I'm under a routine audit... and as soon as the audit's finished, it will be released."
Donald Trump, Sept. 26, 2016 First Presidential Debate ↗WHO WOULD GET PAID?
Nobody knows. No court oversees the process. No judge signs off. The commission writes its own rules. Slush fund style.
THE WEAK ANALOGY.
Acting AG Blanche cites the settlement fund established in Keepseagle v. Vilsack (the Native American Agriculture Fund) as a precedent for the Anti-Weaponization Fund. Others flag material differences in their origin and structure.
"The analogy that has been drawn to that case is grossly inaccurate."
— JOSEPH M. SELLERS, LEAD COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFFS KEEPSEAGLE V. VILSACK PBS NewsHour ↗
CONTRASTING THE TWO UNDERLYING CASES
KEEPSEAGLE v. VILSACK. 1999 lawsuit filed by Native American farmers alleging loan program discrimination. Case settled in 2011 resulting in the Native American Agricultural Fund (NAF).
TRUMP v. IRS. 2026 lawsuit demanding $10B for a tax document leak. Its settlement created the Anti-Weaponization Fund, which also resolves broader claims of “weaponization.” This is the settlement's anchor case and focus here.
Yes. A certified class of Native American farmers sued the USDA for documented loan discrimination. The government contested liability for years before settling. Parties were genuinely adverse.
Real adversaries · Contested liability · Significant litigationNo. Trump sued an agency he controls. His former personal criminal defense attorney — now Acting AG — privately negotiated a settlement on behalf of the U.S. in a few weeks.
President controls both sides · Former client v. former attorneyYes – and unlike ordinary settlements, court approval was legally mandatory under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, because Keepseagle was a certified class action. A federal judge held a public fairness hearing, approved the settlement, and retained supervisory jurisdiction throughout the claims process.
Mandatory court approval · Court retained supervisory jurisdictionNo – the parties dismissed the case before any judge reviewed it. There was no public fairness hearing and no requirement that anyone represent the interests of the taxpayers footing the bill.
Court bypassed · No public fairness hearing or taxpayer representationContrasting the two settlement funds
Native American Agriculture Fund (NAF) VS. Anti-Weaponization Fund (AWF)
Eligibility was defined in advance by a court-certified class: Native American farmers who applied for USDA loans within specific dates. The administrator had discretion over award amounts — but not over who qualified. That threshold was set by a federal judge, in public, before a dollar moved.
Certified class · Published criteria · Judicial discretionAnyone claiming to be a “victim of weaponization,” as determined by 5 AG-appointed commissioners. Adjudication criteria determined in secret. Jan. 6 defendants who physically attacked law enforcement are not excluded. Potential for abuse.
Undefined class · Secret criteria · Dubious recipientsAfter 3,600+ Native American farmers were paid, $380 million remained unclaimed. A federal judge approved distributing the surplus to nonprofits already serving the same Native American farming community. The recipients were limited to the same subject matter and population as the original case.
Court-approved recipients · Same communityThe settlement states that unspent funds by Dec. 15, 2028 would be transferred to a federal account “designated by the President.” No judicial or congressional control of public funds.
Executive unilateralism · No court or congressional involvementClaims were adjudicated by a court-appointed neutral (JAMS / Lester Levy) with no connection to either party — not removable by plaintiff – under published procedures with defined evidence requirements. Court retained supervisory jurisdiction and had to approve any changes to settlement terms.
Independent review · Published procedures · Judicial oversightA 5-person commission to be appointed by the Attorney General and removable by the plaintiff (President) at will. Settlement asserts that the commission will write its own rules and may publish them “in whole or in part, in its discretion.”
Removable commissioners · Secret rules · No judicial oversightYes, class members could object, and two did – all the way up to the Supreme Court. SEE D. CRAIG TINGLE, NO. 16-5189; & K. MANDAN, NO. 16-5190
Independent appeal available · Reviewable determinationsNo, the settlement explicitly bars any appeal, arbitration, or judicial review of any determination made by the fund. A denied claimant has no recourse inside the fund’s secret processes.
No appeal · No arbitration · No judicial reviewYes, the settlement was part of a public court record, modifications required court approval and public notice to class members, and the claims process operated under continuing judicial jurisdiction. Accountability was structural, not discretionary.
Court-filed public record · Structural accountabilityNo, the settlement only requires confidential reports to the Attorney General. Blanche asserts that recipient names may be withheld under “privacy laws” or “privilege.” Critics flag the lack of transparency as a recipe for political patronage and abuse.
Discretionary · Reported only to its creator"I don't even think we have a word for how unprecedented this is. This is in a totally different solar system than any past government settlement on record."
— Adam Zimmerman, Professor of Law, USC Gould School of Law PBS NewsHour ↗
Sources: Keepseagle v. Vilsack No. 99-cv-3119 (D.D.C.) · Trump v. IRS No. 1:26-cv-20609 (S.D. Fla.) · Settlement Agreement, May 18, 2026 · AG Order, May 19, 2026 · Senate Appropriations Hearing, May 20, 2026 · PBS NewsHour · Spectrum News · The Hill · CNN · Cohen Milstein case summary
By the numbers.
“This is the president trying to play every role in the system, acting as plaintiff, defendant, and his own judge and jury to extract extraordinary windfalls.”
— Brandon DeBot · NYU Tax Law Center
All facts sourced.
Primary documents and credible reporting only.
Read for yourself →MAKE SOME NOISE.
Pressure works. Take 2 min to voice your view.
CONTACT YOUR REPRESENTATIVES
ZIP code lookup. Act now!
POST ON X
Share with #StopTheSlushFund
Share on Facebook
Spread the word to your network
Text a friend
Send the link directly
Copy the link
Paste anywhere — email, Slack, anywhere