Trump lawyers double down on slush fund that his own DOJ vowed to abandon

[LetMyPeopleVote]

Last edited Sat Jun 13, 2026, 10:37 AM - Edit history (1)

I admit that I am a law geek. I found and read trump's filing late last night. I was NOT impressed. Basically, there was no collusion and there was a real "case or controversy" (this is required for the court to have jurisdiction) because they say so. trump is going to fight to keep the slush fund.

Trump's lawyers urged a federal judge to reject an effort to reopen the dismissed lawsuit that led to the .8 billion anti-weaponization fund, according to a new court filing.

— Raw Story (@rawstory.com) 2026-06-13T09:00:09Z

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-anti-weaponization-fund-2677036028/

Trump's lawyers urged a federal judge to reject an effort to reopen the dismissed lawsuit that led to the $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund, according to a new court filing.

Attorneys for Trump, his sons, and the Trump Organization argued in the Southern District of Florida filing that a group of 35 former federal judges have "no standing" to challenge the settlement that ended the case and created the anti-weaponization fund.

Trump sued the IRS for $10 billion after a contractor leaked his tax returns, which led to the settlement with an agency he oversees as president. However, the judges' theory that the settlement was collusive "is not a legal standard," the filing added.

"It is a policy objection dressed as a fraud claim," the filing described the judges' case. "It does not warrant the extraordinary remedy of reopening a closed case."

The defense of the fund comes shortly after Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told a House Appropriations subcommittee that the Department of Justice would not move ahead with it. Blanche declined to put that in writing, however.

trump is fighting to keep the slush fund. trump's attorneys are arguing that the "settlement" agreement is valid and was the result of a "fraud on the court" because they say so.

This will be fun to watch.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

1. Here is a link to the fling

I read this filing last night and was not impressed
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/28241060/trumpirsflg061226.pdf
Here are a couple of sections that amused me

Movants’ theory about the legal validity of the settlement under 28 U.S.C. § 2414 and 31
U.S.C. § 1304 is beyond the scope of the Rule 60 motion before this Court. Whether the settlement
satisfies the statutory requirements for use of the Judgment Fund is a question for the Executive
Branch, or, potentially, for a court with proper jurisdiction over a challenge to the settlement
itself—not for this Court in the context of a Rule 60 motion filed by non-parties who lack standing.
Tellingly, Movants acknowledge that “the Court need not decide that ultimate issue now,” thereby
conceding that the merits of the settlement’s validity are not properly before the Court at this stage.
See, e.g., DE 63 at 4.

The existence of a genuine case or controversy at the time of filing is a separate question
from whether the government’s decisions were sound. The IRS was named as a defendant,
Plaintiffs alleged concrete injuries from the disclosure of their tax return information (the
unauthorized disclosure of return information is independently actionable, see 26 U.S.C. §§ 6103,
7431), and the Government’s decision to settle rather than litigate does not by itself render the
underlying claims fraudulent or the litigation collusive. Movants’ characterization of the
commission as “effectively controlled by the President,” DE 63 at 2, is a contested
characterization, not an established legal finding, and cannot support the extraordinary remedy of
voiding a final judgment.

This also amused me. trump is claiming that there is no fraud because they say there is no fraud

Stripped of rhetoric, Movants’ allegations of collusion rest entirely on inference and
speculation. They point to the government’s litigation posture: the absence of filed appearances,
the scope of the settlement, and the decision not to assert defenses that were available in parallel
litigation. Based on these bare-bones assertions, they ask the Court to wrongly conclude that the
entire case was a sham. But none of these facts, individually or collectively, constitute evidence of
collusion, much less the clear and convincing evidence required to establish fraud on the court.
See, e.g., Booker v. Dugger, 825 F.2d 281, 283–84 (11th Cir. 1987) (fraud on the court “must be
established by clear and convincing evidence” and “conclusory averments” do not suffice).

The Government’s decision not to raise every available defense is a litigation judgment,
not a badge of fraud. Defendants in civil cases routinely elect not to contest certain claims for
strategic, economic, or institutional reasons, including the entirely rational conclusion that the cost
of defense exceeds the cost of settlement. The fact that the IRS may have identified viable defenses
in internal memoranda does not mean it was obligated to assert them, and the decision not to do
so does not give rise to an inference of collusion. Movants cite no authority whatsoever, and
Plaintiffs are aware of none, holding that a defendant’s decision to settle rather than litigate
available defenses constitutes fraud on the court.

In sum, the Movants’ position amounts to the assertion that because they disagree with the
government’s decision to settle, the settlement must have been collusive. That is not a legal
standard. It is a policy objection dressed as a fraud claim, and it does not warrant the extraordinary
remedy of reopening a closed case, which, in any event, this Court does not have the power to do.

Again, I am NOT impressed by this filing.

[struggle4progress]

2. "It's getting so hard to steal $1.8 billion nowadays. Nobody used to complain last year."

[LetMyPeopleVote]

3. Trump DOJ refuses to kill 'anti-weaponization' fund in sworn court declaration

In a notice to a federal judge, the Trump administration says such a sworn declaration is “unnecessary” and a violation of separation of powers.

Trump DOJ refuses to kill ‘anti-weaponization’ fund in sworn court declaration
In a notice to a federal judge, the Trump administration says such a sworn declaration is “unnecessary” & a violation of separation of powers
MS NOW: apple.news/AnPwv1qfrTgy...
🔊hell no, capitol switchboard 202-224-3121

— CVJ (@enuffsaysv.bsky.social) 2026-06-19T19:54:52.104Z

https://www.ms.now/news/trump-doj-refuses-to-kill-anti-weaponization-fund-in-sworn-court-declaration

The Trump administration refused to formally kill its nearly $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund on Friday, declining to submit a court-requested sworn declaration to a federal judge acknowledging the program is dead.

Instead, the Department of Justice continued to rely on Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s congressional testimony that the administration is not moving forward with the fund.

In a notice to the court, the DOJ wrote, “Such declarations are unnecessary and the compelled testimony of senior officials from the Executive Branch implicates serious separation of powers concerns.”

The refusal by Blanche and the DOJ to put a pledge in writing not to create the fund — aimed at compensating those who believe they were the victims of alleged prosecutorial overreach —is likely to spark political backlash, especially on Capitol Hill where Blanche’s permanent nomination to head the department is pending.

The DOJ maintains its public statements — both in Blanche’s congressional testimony and in written court filings and hearings — should be sufficient. “All these statements were made under the backdrop of serious penalties for falsity,” it writes. “So there is no reason why declarations should affect the Court’s mootness analysis.”,,,,,

At last week’s hearing in Virginia, Brinkema expressed similar misgivings about Trump’s comments and Blanche’s reluctance to put a pledge not to create the fund in writing. These misgivings will likely continue to bubble now that the DOJ has declined to submit the declaration and the litigation will likely continue.

There are at least two separate federal court cases. In addition to the Virginia case described above, there is a separate lawsuit brought by 35 retired federal judges seeking to litigate (i) whether this slush fund was a "fraud on the court" and (ii) whether there was a valid lawsuit in the first place because there was no case or controversy. trump's attorneys refused to answer the courts issues in that case. This will be fun to watch