LIVE NEWS
  • Apple Will Reportedly Add Bill-Splitting Feature to iOS 27
  • Opinion | Putin Has No Good Way Out of His War
  • Flowise’s MCP implementation can run ghost commands
  • DOE Restarts Home Efficiency Rebates, and Electrification Is the Biggest Loser
  • Albania prosecutors probe Jared Kushner-linked resort amid violent protests
  • Clinical Workflow Automation: Where AI Is Making Real Inroads
  • AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE review: A cheaper GPU for a wildly expensive era
  • US court upholds injunction against Trump policy banning transgender troops | Donald Trump News
Prime Reports
  • Home
  • Popular Now
  • Crypto
  • Cybersecurity
  • Economy
  • Geopolitics
  • Global Markets
  • Politics
  • See More
    • Artificial Intelligence
    • Climate Risks
    • Defense
    • Healthcare Innovation
    • Science
    • Technology
    • World
Prime Reports
  • Home
  • Popular Now
  • Crypto
  • Cybersecurity
  • Economy
  • Geopolitics
  • Global Markets
  • Politics
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Climate Risks
  • Defense
  • Healthcare Innovation
  • Science
  • Technology
  • World
Home»Politics»Judge agrees to review Trump’s $1.8 billion ‘anti-weaponization’ fund : NPR
Politics

Judge agrees to review Trump’s $1.8 billion ‘anti-weaponization’ fund : NPR

primereportsBy primereportsMay 31, 2026No Comments4 Mins Read
Share Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Reddit Telegram Email
Judge agrees to review Trump’s .8 billion ‘anti-weaponization’ fund : NPR
Share
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Pinterest Email


Judge agrees to review Trump’s .8 billion ‘anti-weaponization’ fund : NPR

A federal judge is reviewing a $1.8 billion fund set up to pay people the president says were wronged by the federal government.

China Pool/Getty Images AsiaPac


hide caption

toggle caption

China Pool/Getty Images AsiaPac

A federal judge will review the Trump administration’s $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization fund” after a group of former federal judges questioned its legitimacy.

The fund was established following Trump’s lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns. Instead of going to trial, Trump administration lawyers and the president’s personal legal team settled by agreeing to stand up the taxpayer-supported fund.

U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams in Florida on Friday ordered Trump’s lawyers to respond to the motion filed by 35 former federal judges who argued that Trump is in a sense both the plaintiff and the defendant in the case, having filed it as president and also the leader of the executive branch overseeing the IRS. Thus, the judges wrote, the lawsuit “is itself a fraud on the court.”

The former judges, appointed by both Democrat and Republican presidents, wrote that the lawsuit was used as a justification for the “looting” of American taxpayers. They described the case as a type of “collusion” between the president’s lawyers and the federal government and asked the judge to re-open the case to determine the settlement only after the court was “deceived.”

Williams, appointed by former President Barack Obama, had initially granted a dismissal of Trump’s lawsuit following the settlement, but, in light of the former judges’ motion, she said the court is “empowered to investigate serious misconduct.”

It follows another judge in Virginia temporarily freezing the fund, which Trump officials have described as an effort to compensate Trump allies, Jan. 6 rioters and others the president says have been unjustly targeted.

That judge, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Virginia, ordered on Friday that Trump officials stop setting up the pool of money to “ensure that no funds are irreversibly disbursed.”

Brinkema, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, set a June 12 hearing for arguments over whether the order should be extended.

A Justice Department spokesperson did not respond to an NPR request for comment on Saturday. Justice Department officials said on social media, “We will do everything in our power to make whole those who were persecuted for political purposes.”

Legal expert: Fund ‘doesn’t address real legal injuries’

Taken together, the orders are an early legal setback for the fund, which has caused divisions within the Capitol Hill, with critics describing it as a slush fund for Trump supporters who claim they were the victims of political persecution.

Brinkema’s order pausing it was the result of a lawsuit brought by former Justice Department lawyer Andrew Floyd and other plaintiffs, who argued that the nearly $2 billion was never approved by Congress and “rewards and incentivizes unlawful behavior and facilitates an astounding abuse of taxpayer funds.”

Legal experts have expressed particular alarm over the fund’s lack of oversight, in addition to the bucket of money having no connection to the claims Trump alleged in his lawsuit against the IRS.

Adam Zimmerman, a law professor at the University of Southern California, told NPR that past examples of mass compensation funds directed by the president, whether related to the Holocaust or the BP oil spill, resolved sprawling class-action lawsuits, which is not the case here.

“All those cases involved identifiable injuries, to discrete groups of people, for violations of real laws, under neutrally applicable rules, often brokered in the shadow of a class action litigation or mass litigation,” Zimmerman said on Saturday.

This fund, however, “doesn’t address real legal injuries.”

“It offers money to an indeterminate group of people, who never threatened or commenced any kind of legal action,” he said, describing it as “unlike anything we’ve seen in the history of the republic.”

Share. Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Email
Previous ArticleASCO News: BioNTech and Pfizer tout bispecifics, and Pazdur speaks
Next Article Life under a Delhi flyover: how one homeless family endures the city’s extreme heat | Global development
primereports
  • Website

Related Posts

Politics

Albania prosecutors probe Jared Kushner-linked resort amid violent protests

June 2, 2026
Politics

Violent protests erupt in Chile over government cuts of social programmes | Protests

June 2, 2026
Politics

How California Redistricting Shrunk the Competitive Map

June 1, 2026
Add A Comment
Leave A Reply Cancel Reply

Top Posts

Paxton’s win over Cornyn sets up high-stakes Texas clash with Talarico

May 28, 202616 Views

Global Resources Outlook 2024 | UNEP

December 6, 202510 Views

Texas Democrat Talarico claims voting laws are rigged ahead of Paxton race

May 28, 20269 Views
Stay In Touch
  • Facebook
  • YouTube
  • TikTok
  • WhatsApp
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
Latest Reviews

Subscribe to Updates

Get the latest tech news from FooBar about tech, design and biz.

PrimeReports.org
Independent global news, analysis & insights.

PrimeReports.org brings you in-depth coverage of geopolitics, markets, technology and risk – with context that helps you understand what really matters.

Editorially independent · Opinions are those of the authors and not investment advice.
Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn YouTube
Key Sections
  • World
  • Geopolitics
  • Popular Now
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Cybersecurity
  • Crypto
All Categories
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Climate Risks
  • Crypto
  • Cybersecurity
  • Defense
  • Economy
  • Geopolitics
  • Global Markets
  • Healthcare Innovation
  • Politics
  • Popular Now
  • Science
  • Technology
  • World
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Disclaimer
  • Cookie Policy
  • DMCA / Copyright Notice
  • Editorial Policy

Sign up for Prime Reports Briefing – essential stories and analysis in your inbox.

By subscribing you agree to our Privacy Policy. You can opt out anytime.
Latest Stories
  • Apple Will Reportedly Add Bill-Splitting Feature to iOS 27
  • Opinion | Putin Has No Good Way Out of His War
  • Flowise’s MCP implementation can run ghost commands
© 2026 PrimeReports.org. All rights reserved.
Privacy Terms Contact

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.