NEED TO KNOW

• A bipartisan group of 35 former federal judges asks a court to reopen Trump's dismissed IRS suit
• They allege the $1.776B settlement fund was concealed from the judge until after dismissal
• The DOJ calls the motion frivolous and cites precedent; the underlying tax leak was real

MIAMI (TDR) — A bipartisan group of 35 former federal judges asked a federal court Wednesday to reopen President Trump's dismissed IRS lawsuit and probe whether the deal that resolved it, creating a $1.776 billion fund, amounted to a fraud on the court.

⚖️ 35 retired federal judges just signed their names to a fraud accusation against the sitting administration.
The charge: Trump sued the IRS for $10 billion. His DOJ settled with itself. Created a $1.776 billion fund. Never told the court.#TruthOverSpin | The Dupree Report pic.twitter.com/6iwwEjNWH2

— Wayne DuPree (@RealWayneDupree) May 29, 2026

The big picture: The motion targets a settlement struck while Trump sat on both sides of the case.

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10

• Trump, two of his sons, and the Trump Organization sued the IRS in January for at least $10 billion over a contractor's leak of their tax returns.
• Because he is president, Trump was effectively suing an agency he controls, making him plaintiff and head of the defendant at once.

Why it matters: The deal created a taxpayer-funded pot that critics say could pay Trump's allies, with no vote in Congress.

• The "Anti-Weaponization Fund" would compensate people claiming political targeting by the government, and could give pardoned Jan. 6 rioters a path to seek payouts.
• A follow-on addendum granted the Trump family immunity from past IRS investigations, a term legal experts called extraordinary.

Driving the news: The judges say the timing shows the deal was hidden from the court.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE THE DUPREE REPORT

• Trump withdrew the suit two days before briefs were due explaining the case; Judge Kathleen Williams closed it, noting there was no "settlement of record."
• The $1.776 billion, drawn from Treasury's Judgment Fund, echoes the year of the Declaration of Independence.

What they're saying: The two sides disagree on whether this was routine or rigged.

• The 35 former judges — wrote the deal raises "profound questions about the parties' candor toward the court and manipulation of the judicial system."
• Natalie Baldassarre, DOJ spokesperson — called the motion "frivolous," saying there is "nothing improper about this agreement."
• The judges, via Rule 60 — argue Williams can set aside her dismissal and probe "whether a fraud occurred."

Yes, but: The grievance underneath is real, and the DOJ's defense is not empty. Contractor Charles Littlejohn did leak the Trumps' returns and pleaded guilty, the plaintiffs take no cash, and the DOJ cites the Obama-era Keepseagle fund as precedent. The judges' problem is narrower: the same DOJ fought near-identical claims from other leak victims, then settled the president's case into a fund and a family tax shield.

• Judge Williams had already questioned the suit's validity given Trump's apparent self-dealing.
• Even Senate Republicans, including Thom Tillis, have voiced deep skepticism about a fund that bypasses Congress's power of the purse.

Between the lines: Strip the politics and the structural problem is one either party should fear: a president can sue an agency he commands, drop the suit before a judge rules, and convert the dismissal into money and immunity no legislature approved. The fight over "fraud on the court" is really a fight over whether a settlement reached this way is a legal remedy or an end-run around the branches built to check it. That question doesn't care who occupies the White House.

What's next:

• Two other suits, from injured Jan. 6 Capitol Police officers and from a fired prosecutor, a professor, and New Haven, also seek to block the fund amid bipartisan backlash.
• Legal experts argue the immunity addendum may sit beyond Congress's reach, leaving courts and lawmakers each only partial tools to unwind the deal.

If a president can sue, settle, and pay out without a ruling or a vote, what stops the next one from doing the same to people you support?

Sources

This report was compiled using reporting from CNBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Hill, NBC News, and the Justice Department

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10