Call it “the art of the self-deal.” You sue yourself, announce a hasty “settlement” when the judge questions whether you are engaged in collusion (with yourself), and direct the creation of a fund consisting of nearly $1.8 billion to be doled out to your allies by a hand-selected commission—all without judicial or congressional approval. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, announcing the creation of President Trump’s “Anti-Weaponization Fund” on Monday, billed it as a way to redress “victims of lawfare and weaponization,” presumably at the hands of the Biden administration—even as Trump pushes the Justice Department to prosecute his personal enemies, such as James Comey and Jerome Powell, on bogus criminal charges. Senator Elizabeth Warren was more accurate, calling the pool of money a political “slush fund” for Trump’s friends. Evidently it wasn’t enough to pardon all those who stormed the US Capitol and brutally assaulted law enforcement officers on January 6, 2021. Now Trump is fixing to use our taxpayer dollars to pay them, too.

As if that wasn’t enough, on Tuesday Blanche quietly released another statement adding that, by the way, the Internal Revenue Service had also agreed to provide Trump, his businesses, and his family members complete immunity from investigation, prosecution, or any liability for any claims involving his or their tax returns that are now pending “or that could be pending.” This is nothing less than a thinly disguised advance pardon for any and all tax liabilities the Trump family and his businesses may have incurred at any time. Indeed this relief is even more expansive than a pardon, because it extends to civil liabilities, not subject to the pardon power. And it extends beyond the Trump administration, purporting to “forever” bar even future administrations from holding him and his family accountable for tax violations. In 2024 The New York Timesreported that an audit of Trump’s returns could ultimately cost Trump $100 million in back taxes and penalties. That’s now off the table. Most remarkably, that’s relief Trump could never have obtained in the lawsuit whose putative “settlement” led to this personal bonanza. 

Trump filed that suit against the IRS this past January, seeking at least $10 billion in damages on the grounds that the agency was responsible for a private contractor’s leaking tax returns filed by Trump, his corporation, and two of his sons. He claimed to be suing in his “personal” capacity, as a private individual. But he was suing the IRS, a federal agency whose head officer he appoints and can replace at will. How the federal government responds to any lawsuit, including this one, is ultimately Trump’s call, as head of the executive branch. The formal title of the suit is Donald J. Trump v. Internal Revenue Service, but it would be more accurately captioned Trump v. Trump.

Trump’s apparent belief that there’s nothing wrong with suing himself in this way is particularly galling in light of the “unitary executive” theory that his administration has propounded. In litigation currently before the Supreme Court involving his firing of a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission, Trump argues that the Constitution vests all executive power in the president, which means that he must have complete, unchecked authority to remove all executive officers at will to ensure that their decisions are his decisions. The Court’s conservative majority is likely to agree. But that only underscores the blatant legal and ethical impropriety of Trump, the civilian, demanding a $10 billion judgment from Trump, the president—and then effectively “settling” with himself in exchange for immunity from any personal tax liability and a nearly $1.8 billion fund poised to pay his allies.

*

This is not the first time that Trump has effectively sued himself, seeking money in his personal capacity from the executive branch he leads in his official capacity. He also filed claims seeking $230 million from the Justice Department for its investigations into whether he cooperated in Russian interference in the 2016 election and whether he illegally retained classified documents at Mar-a-Lago after he left the White House in 2021. He acknowledged, in discussing these claims, that there was something odd about them now that he had returned to the presidency. “I have a lawsuit that was doing very well, and when I became president, I said, I’m sort of suing myself,” he said in the Oval Office in October. “It sort of looks bad, I’m suing myself, right? So I don’t know. But that was a lawsuit that was very strong, very powerful.” 

One of the most basic principles of adjudication is that collusive lawsuits are not permitted. Indeed, they are unconstitutional. Because Article III of the Constitution gives federal courts jurisdiction only over genuine “cases or controversies,” the courts decline to adjudicate when two parties are not truly “adverse” and conspire to sue each other. The Supreme Court has long ruled that a proper lawsuit requires “a dispute between parties who face each other in an adversary proceeding.” Kathleen Williams, the federal judge who was hearing Trump’s case in Florida, properly questioned whether, when Trump is essentially suing himself, the case is inherently collusive. When she ordered briefing on that issue and appointed three distinguished lawyers, including a former judge and former solicitor general, to address the matter as amicus curiae, Trump’s bluff was called. He dropped the suit, assertedly in exchange for the creation of the “Anti-Weaponization Fund” and the grant of personal immunity for tax liability. The Treasury Department’s top lawyer stepped down hours after the fund was announced. 

On Monday, upon hearing reports that Trump planned to settle, a group of ninety-three members of Congress filed a motion urging Judge Williams to block the creation of the fund. The Trump administration, however, insulated its actions from her review by dropping the suit; it will no doubt argue that she has no authority over a settlement that was concluded out of court. That may be right. But if so it only places the onus on all of us—members of Congress, the press, the legal profession, and the citizenry at large—to monitor closely how the fund is used. It won’t be easy: the settlement provides that the fund’s quarterly reports of payments will be “confidential” and made only to the attorney general.

*

Trump has already shown a willingness to use the pardon power to reward his friends and donors, but a pardon merely lifts a criminal conviction. This fund would go further, providing handouts to anyone who, according to the settlement agreement, was a victim of “Lawfare and Weaponization.” If the fund were administered fairly, the first payouts would rightly go to Comey, Powell, Letitia James, the law firms Trump unconstitutionally penalized for bringing lawsuits and hiring attorneys he disapproved of, and Harvard University and the many other colleges he has targeted for being too liberal. But given the administration’s complete control of the fund’s directors, such applications would surely be futile.

Instead we can expect to see applications not only from many of the 1,600 January 6 rioters but also from other convicted criminals among Trump’s allies, including Roger Stone, a longtime adviser convicted of lying to Congress and obstruction of justice; Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro, close Trump allies both convicted of contempt of Congress for defying lawful subpoenas; Paul Manafort, Trump’s campaign chairman, convicted of bank and tax fraud; Rick Gates, Trump’s deputy campaign chair, convicted of lying to the FBI; and George Papadopoulos, an adviser to the Trump campaign, convicted of lying to investigators about his Russian ties.

The executive branch has long had a “judgment fund” to pay damages when it loses a case or has to settle. But in my experience the Justice Department, under both parties, has always fought hard before settling a lawsuit and agreeing to disburse taxpayer dollars. Office of Legal Counsel memos require that no payment can be made unless a legal claim could result in money damages; it’s not meant for handouts. But Trump’s Justice Department is a completely different animal. Trump has purged career lawyers, replaced them with loyalists, fired anyone who refuses to do his bidding, and turned the department into a tool for his personal and political vendettas. The “Anti-Weaponization Fund” takes all of this a big step further.

One of the less remarked-upon provisions of the settlement promises an official apology to Trump and his family. It’s not quite clear how that will work. One envisions Trump standing before a mirror saying “I’m sorry.” It could be the first time he’s ever apologized. I guess you have to start somewhere.