VIRGINIA — U.S. Magistrate Judge Ivan Davis of the Eastern District of Virginia ordered the Trump administration to disclose the identities of the individuals who designed the structure of the $1.8 billion "anti-weaponization fund." The order was issued as part of a lawsuit filed by the non-profit Democracy Forward.

The settlement aimed to set aside approximately $1.8 billion for payouts to individuals who claimed to have suffered from political weaponization and lawfare. The fund was established as part of a settlement agreement between President Donald Trump, two of his sons, his company, and the Internal Revenue Service. The settlement agreement shielded President Trump and his family from future IRS audits.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit include a fired prosecutor and a college professor who was acquitted of assaulting federal agents at a protest against an immigration raid in California. Career IRS workers also joined the lawsuit against the Trump-IRS agreement. Treniss Evans III, a January 6 defendant seeking a $1 million payout, posted a photo of himself in Attorney General Todd Blanche’s office.

A person familiar with the matter stated that Treniss Evans III did not meet with Attorney General Blanche. Treniss Evans III was previously sentenced to 20 days in prison and three years probation for his participation in the Capitol storming.

"Today’s order granting discovery is a significant step in getting to the bottom of the slush fund," said Aman George, senior counsel at Democracy Forward. He added that his organization would persist in its legal efforts. "We will continue to meet the government in court until our investigation is complete and the slush fund is permanently halted," he said.

Attorney General Blanche stated that the fund he proposed before his confirmation "is dead." Blanche dropped the fund proposal after bipartisan criticism. Senator John Cornyn of Texas and Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina opposed the proposed fund. Blanche proposed the compensation fund before his confirmation hearing for US attorney general.

"The fund is dead or whatever word you want to use," Blanche said. "It never started. So, it’s not as if the fund is coming back." Blanche submitted a written statement declaring the fund "rescinded" and stating that "there is no fund." He also stated that there were never commissioners in charge of the fund.

President Trump stated at a cabinet meeting in July that the fund is dead but he wished it were not. "It is dead, but you know, I wish it weren't," President Trump said of the fund. "To be honest with you, I think people were horribly treated, horribly abused." Senator Cory Booker stated that the agreement provided no guarantee that the fund could not be revived. "Nothing … no guarantees whatsoever that this slush fund still can’t go forward," Senator Cory Booker said regarding the agreement.

Why It Matters

The judicial order compels the disclosure of the architects behind a multi-billion dollar settlement structure that has faced significant legal and political scrutiny. The fund's design and the identities of its creators remain central to ongoing litigation challenging the validity of the agreement between the former president and federal tax authorities. The revelation of these individuals could impact future legal proceedings regarding the settlement's implementation and legality.

The dispute shows tensions between executive branch settlements and judicial oversight, particularly when such agreements involve substantial public funds and potential exemptions from standard regulatory processes. With conflicting statements from high-ranking officials about the fund's status, the court's intervention seeks to clarify the administrative reality behind the proposed compensation mechanism. The outcome may influence how similar large-scale settlements are structured and reviewed in the future.

Timeline

On December 3, 2001, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit amended its opinion in McClatchy Newspapers, Inc. v. U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The amendment addressed the right to inspect and copy judicial records, noting that this right is not absolute and that every court has supervisory power over its own records and files.

In July 2024, multiple developments occurred regarding the fund. U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams ruled that the parties in the Trump-IRS lawsuit had never been in actual conflict. She stated that there was never adverseness between the parties, never a case or controversy, and never a question as to who would prevail.

Williams further stated the lawsuit was brought for an improper purpose to gain the imprimatur of judicial legitimacy for a settlement that had no viable basis in law or fact. During the same month, President Trump stated at a cabinet meeting that the fund is dead but he wished it were not, adding that people were horribly treated and horribly abused.