Editorial: Taxpayer-Funded Self-Dealing at the Highest Levels

Column By Max Powers

The United States has long championed fiscal responsibility, government accountability, and the rule of law over partisan grievance. The recently announced settlement in President Donald J. Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS demands scrutiny, not cheerleading or reflexive outrage.

President Trump, his family, and the Trump Organization filed a $10 billion damages claim against the IRS over the 2021 leak of his tax returns by a contractor, who was prosecuted and sentenced to five years in prison. The returns showed Trump pays little to no taxes and embarassed hm. Legal experts widely viewed the suit as weak; however, the massive damages claim was unsubstantiated, immunity defenses applied, and the statute of limitations had expired four years earlier. A federal judge expressed skepticism about the case’s viability and whether it even satisfied the Constitution’s “case or controversy” requirement, given that the plaintiff now controls the defendant executive branch. So, the “frivolous” lawsuit was on its way to being dismissed as it should be, when all of a sudden, what do you know, the government wants to settle?

Rather than litigate to dismissal, the administration settled. Trump’s side dropped the suit. In return, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche — Trump’s former personal attorney — established a nearly $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” drawn from taxpayer resources, primarily the DOJ’s Judgment Fund. This fund aims to compensate individuals claiming to be victims of “lawfare” and government weaponization, with a five-member board appointed by the Attorney General and removable by the President. It would operate with broad discretion, the power to issue apologies and monetary awards, and limited apparent oversight mechanisms.

This arrangement raises legitimate and serious concerns.

First, executive self-dealing. A sitting president suing the government he leads, then settling with his own Justice Department for a large pot of discretionary money, creates an inherent conflict. The optics are poor, even if the underlying grievances about past investigations are sincere. Taxpayers should not be treated as an ATM for settling personal or political scores.

Second, precedent and process. Using a settlement to create what critics accurately call a slush fund bypasses the normal congressional appropriations process. While the Judgment Fund exists for legitimate settlements, repurposing it at this scale for a politically defined class of claimants invites abuse. A fund with appointees serving at the President’s pleasure lacks the independence needed for credible adjudication of claims. Without rigorous, transparent standards and independent review, it risks rewarding allies rather than redressing clear legal wrongs.

Third, rule of law consistency. Many Americans across the political spectrum have decried weaponized government — whether perceived targeting of conservative groups, parents at school boards, or others under prior administrations. Providing a redress mechanism is not inherently illegitimate. However, doing so through a settlement that effectively allows the executive to pay itself from the Treasury sets a dangerous precedent. Future administrations could replicate or expand it, further eroding public trust.

This is a criminal conspiracy and theft, plain and simple. Calling for public pressure on representatives, greater transparency, and potential congressional oversight is reasonable. Demanding street protests as if democracy hangs by a thread is the kind of exhaustion-inducing alarmism that has polarized the country for years.

The American people deserve better than either blind defense of executive creativity or unhinged conspiracy claims. Courts may yet weigh in on the settlement’s propriety. Taxpayers have every right to insist their money compensates verifiable harms, not political patronage — regardless of which party holds power. However, as it is set up right now, Trump can simply dole the majority of the slush fund to himself and his family with no oversight, and then toss the scraps to those who attacked the Capitol on January 6. Yes, in accordance with the settlement, criminals who attacked our Capitol could receive payments from this fund for being prosecuted.