By: Paul Goldberg – Senior Correspondent | LGBT Politics USA

WASHINGTON, D.C. — (July 13, 2026) — A federal judge on Monday struck down the controversial settlement between President Donald Trump and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), ruling that the agreement lacked a legitimate legal foundation and improperly sought judicial approval for an arrangement involving billions of taxpayer dollars.




The decision by U.S. District Judge Kathleen M. Williams effectively nullifies the settlement that had been used as the legal framework for the proposed Anti-Weaponization Fund, a program initially valued at nearly $1.8 billion. The Justice Department had already announced it would abandon the fund following bipartisan criticism and multiple legal challenges.

Now Trending on LGBT Business, Finance and Politics News on JRL CHARTS

•  LGBTQ Consumers Shift Spending Away from Target, Walmart and Amazon

•  Trump Targets New York Times in New Lawsuit as War on DEI Programs Intensifies

•  ACA Subsidy Loss Triggers Healthcare Shock for LGBTQ Americans

•  Trump-Appointed 9th Circuit Judges Revive Lawsuit Against Alaska Airlines Over LGBTQ Policy

•  Millions of Working Americans Are Going Hungry—and Nobody Is Talking About It

•  Get the Latest In LGBT Politics News on JRL CHARTS

Judge Says Lawsuit Served an Improper Purpose

In a sharply worded opinion, Judge Williams concluded that the lawsuit was not a genuine legal dispute between opposing parties, but instead appeared designed to secure judicial legitimacy for an agreement that lacked a valid basis under the law.

“This action was never about a party seeking judicial resolution of a legal issue or a factual dispute,” Williams wrote.

The judge further stated that the litigation appeared intended to provide legal cover for granting immunity to individuals and entities affiliated with the president while directing taxpayer funds toward grievances not recognized by existing law.




Court Recommends Attorney Discipline

Judge Williams also recommended that disciplinary authorities review the conduct of attorneys involved in negotiating and presenting the settlement.

Among those specifically referenced was Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, who previously served as one of Trump’s personal attorneys before joining the Justice Department. Williams cited Blanche’s public comments regarding the fund, writing that they suggested an unusual level of coordination between both sides of the litigation.

According to the ruling, those statements supported the court’s conclusion that the parties “worked in tandem” rather than functioning as genuine legal adversaries.




Background of the Dispute

The underlying lawsuit originated after President Trump sued the IRS over the unauthorized disclosure of his tax return information. The settlement later became the foundation for the proposed Anti-Weaponization Fund, which was intended to compensate individuals claiming they had been unfairly targeted by the federal government.

The proposal quickly drew criticism from legal scholars, ethics watchdogs, members of Congress from both parties, and former federal judges, who questioned both the legality of the settlement and the constitutional issues surrounding a sitting president negotiating with agencies under his own administration.




Developing Story

The ruling represents the latest chapter in the legal battle surrounding the proposed Anti-Weaponization Fund. Additional appeals or court proceedings could follow as challenges to related aspects of the agreement continue.

This is a developing story. JRL CHARTS will continue to update this report as additional information becomes available.




Paul Goldberg
Latest posts by Paul Goldberg (see all)