The Department of Justice is playing chicken with a federal judge—and the stakes are a $10 billion slush fund born from Donald Trump’s war with the IRS.
In a filing late Thursday, the DOJ told Judge Michael J. Reagan it would not, as he ordered, put in writing that it won't use the so-called “anti-weaponization” fund to finance future litigation. The fund, created in May as part of a settlement of Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS, is supposed to cover costs of “ensuring the IRS is not weaponized against taxpayers.” But the judge wants guarantees it won’t be a slush fund for political payback.
The Backstory: Trump’s $10 Billion Win
Trump sued the IRS in 2022, claiming the agency targeted conservatives. In May, his administration announced a settlement: the IRS would pay $10 billion into a fund “to prevent future weaponization of the tax code.” Critics called it a ransom payment. Supporters called it accountability. The DOJ billed it as a landmark reform.
Then, in June, the judge overseeing a separate case—a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by a transparency group—asked the DOJ to formally state that the fund would not be used to fight FOIA requests or other routine litigation. The DOJ refused.
The Legal Flashpoint
Judge Reagan didn’t demand that the fund be dissolved. He asked for a simple assurance: a written promise that the money would not be used to “circumvent normal appropriations or to fund litigation that would otherwise be paid from the Treasury.” The DOJ’s response was a 12-page brief that said, in essence: we don’t have to tell you that.
“The Department’s authority to allocate funds is not subject to judicial supervision,” the filed argued. Translation: mind your own bench.
Legal experts say this is a dangerous power play. “The DOJ is asserting that once a settlement fund exists, a judge has no say in how it’s used—even if that fund was created by a settlement in a different case,” said Mariana Coelho, a former federal prosecutor. “That’s a recipe for abuse.”
What’s the Fund Actually For?
The official purpose is to cover legal fees and training to prevent the IRS from targeting taxpayers based on political affiliation. But the language is vague. Critics fear it could be used to bankroll lawsuits against journalists, whistleblowers, or political opponents. The DOJ has not published a budget or a list of planned expenditures.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) called it “a slush fund for the administration’s enemies list.” Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) praised it as “a necessary check on a rogue agency.” The split is pure 2026 politics.
The Judge’s Decision
Judge Reagan has given the DOJ until next Friday to reconsider. If they don’t, he could hold a hearing—or worse, issue a contempt order. The DOJ is gambling that he’ll blink. But this judge has a reputation for not blinking.
In 2023, Reagan ordered the DOJ to turn over internal memos about the IRS targeting case, and he didn’t back down when they stalled. He’s a Reagan appointee, but he’s also a stickler for process.
The Bigger Picture
This isn’t just about $10 billion. It’s about whether a settlement can create a parallel funding stream that bypasses Congress and the courts. If the DOJ wins, any future administration could create similar “anti-weaponization” funds to shield its own actions.
And here’s the kicker: the fund’s name itself is a weapon. “Anti-weaponization” is a phrase that sounds neutral but is deeply partisan. It implies that the government was, in fact, weaponized—and that this fund is the solution. But who decides what counts as weaponization? The DOJ, apparently, and without oversight.
“They’re using the settlement to create a narrative,” said Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University. “And they’re daring the courts to stop them.”
Meanwhile, the IRS is still operating under a cloud of suspicion. The settlement didn’t resolve the underlying claims of bias. It just bought silence. And now the DOJ is fighting to keep its new piggy bank closed to scrutiny.
The Last Word
Judge Reagan should force the issue. If the DOJ won’t promise not to abuse the fund, then the fund should be frozen until Congress decides its fate. Otherwise, we’re left with a $10 billion question mark—and a government that answers to no one.
