This week’s Executive Dysfunction.
, a newsletter that highlights one under-the-radar story about how Trump is changing the law—or how the law is pushing back—and keeps you posted on the latest from Slate’s Jurisprudence team.
President Donald Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over a leaked tax-return scandal from six years ago was on the verge of an epic settlement. In exchange for Trump dropping his suit, the federal government agreed to never pursue tax enforcement against the president, his family, and their businesses over past tax returnsagreed to establish a $1.7 billion “anti-weaponization fund” for anyone prosecuted by prior administrations, with Jan. 6 insurrectionists set to be the major beneficiaries.
The agreement was short-lived, however, as even an obedient GOP could not swallow such an audacious sweetheart deal. Now a suspicious judiciary is coming after Trump for even conceiving of an arrangement that reeks of such bad faith.
“We are not moving forward with the fund. Period,” acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told lawmakers during a committee hearing on Tuesday. That statement put an end to the fund that would have used taxpayer dollars to pay out Trump allies and perhaps, indirectly, Trump himself, for any perceived grievances, mostly against the Biden administration. Disgraced former Republican Rep.
George Santos and a plethora of inner-circle associates and pardoned convicted criminals were already, with senators yelling at the attorney general about how the fund “feels like Trump cut a deal with himself. ” Sen. Mitch McConnell didn’t attend the meeting but, “So, the nation’s top law enforcement official is asking for a slush fund to pay people who assault cops? Utterly stupid, morally wrong—take your pick.
”Technically, when Blanche promised lawmakers the anti-weaponization fund would not be moving forward, he was not under oath. When Democratic Rep. Grace Meng pressed Blanche on this, he would not commit to putting anything into writing. And during that same hearing, Blanche confirmed that the part of the settlement agreement that “” the federal government from pursuing tax enforcement against Trump, his family, and their businesses over any past tax returns remains in place.
This is an enormous windfall for Trump, as his businesses have landed multimillion-dollar deals from crypto ventures and his sons have signed equally lucrative licensing and management deals since he retook the White House last year. All in all, Forbes estimated that the Trumps could save The slush fund appears dead, at least for now, as Blanche chose to prioritize Trump’s own personal interests over those of the hundreds of people whom the president inspired to commit violent crimes at the Capitol.
Things began to fall apart last week when U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema issued ait at least until June 12, when a hearing is scheduled for Brinkema to make a final decision. The judge’s action was prompted after a former DOJ prosecutor and other plaintiffs who said they were targeted by the Trump-Vance administrationover the legality of the fund.
At this point, it’s unclear what the DOJ will argue before Judge Brinkema, but the indication is that it will drop its arguments in favor of the slush fund. That is not the only legal challenge, though, as one day after Brinkema’s order, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams reopened Trump’s IRS lawsuit, an exceedingly uncommon practice, under a federal procedure rule that allows a judge to rule on the legitimacy of a legal challenge to assess “whether an attorney has abused the judicial process.
” Williams’ decision came after 35 former federal judges from across the political spectrum submitted ato the judge that argued Trump and the DOJ voluntarily settled the president’s lawsuit “solely to avoid judicial scrutiny of a lawsuit that ‘was collusive from the start’ and was only filed to provide the imprimatur of legality for an unlawful settlement. ”When Williams was first assigned Trump’s IRS lawsuit, she expressed concerns about how the president was essentially on both sides of the case, as the U.S. president also controls who leads the Justice Department, and how this dynamic could be collusive.
In order to assess whether Trump’s lawsuit was valid, she ordered his personal attorneys and the DOJ to provide written explanations to the court detailing whether they were in conflict with each other. Days before having to submit to Williams,the settlement, which included establishing the anti-weaponization fund. This solved two critical problems for Blanche: His boss gets to claim victory while the acting attorney general can legally evade judicial accountability.
With a settlement in place, Williams seemed to lose control over the legal dispute—until this week, when she used the clever procedural maneuver to reopen the case. Williams is attempting to call Blanche’s bluff by reopening Trump’s IRS lawsuit, which will require the DOJ to certify that everything it filed in that case served a legitimate purpose, and was not solely to produce a rigged settlement to benefit Trump.
As former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman smartly, Williams also flagged that the tax amnesty granted to Trump as part of the settlement was signed with the seal of the DOJ by Blanche alone, and not anybody actually responsible for tax enforcement at the IRS. By June 12, the same day the DOJ is due in Brinkema’s court, Blanche and Trump’s attorneys need to provide answers to Williams on three major questions: Did Trump and Blanche collude, and are they genuinely adverse parties?
Was Trump’s lawsuit dismissed on a deceptive premise? And was the U.S. judiciary “the victim of a fraud”? Whatever happens next in the case will have major ramifications not just for Trump and his family, but for the rule of law in this country. The judiciary is not the only player trying to pin down the Trump administration, though.
Democrats are planning to force votes in Congress to nullify the president’s IRS immunity, which is likely illegal, as federal law bans presidents from interfering in the tax audit process. Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskinthat his party will strengthen the existing law and expand it to include other governmental investigations—if they win the House in the upcoming midterm elections. We hope you learned a thing or two from this edition of Executive Dysfunction, and if you enjoyed reading it, please consider!
Check out our yearly package that tops off the end of the Supreme Court’s term with stories explaining all of the court’s major decisions from legal experts Dahlia Lithwick, Mark Joseph Stern, and more. With the Supreme Court entering the final few weeks of its 2025–2026 term, Dahlia and Mark reflect on the court’s “three-ring circus” for. This latest term came to be defined by the merits docket, the shadow docket, and the justices’ public grievances.
Major decisions were delivered on the Voting Rights Act, conversion therapy for LGBTQ+ minors, and President Trump’s tariffs, but even more blockbuster opinions have yet to be released. In the coming weeks, we can expect the Supreme Court to issue final decisions on birthright citizenship, immigration cases, and executive power.to discuss an interesting turn of events: Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined his liberal colleagues in striking down Mississippi courts for violating the Constitution when local prosecutors struck Black jurors from a courtroom.
President Trump’s anti-weaponization fund also gets an honorable mention, alongside the DOJ’s rumored investigation into E. Jean Carroll. After successfully proving president Donald Trump sexually abused her, then also defamed her, E. Jean Carroll secured historic legal settlements to the tune of roughly $90 million. Now, with the power of the White House behind Trump, his Justice Department is rumored to be investigating Carroll, along with Democratic megadonor Reid Hoffman, who paid for a portion of Carroll’s legal fees.
Given the president’s public track record of condemning Carroll, I explain how this could very well be This week, the Supreme Court issued an unsigned order reversing a lower court decision that had determined a man’s guilt based on new facts that had never gone before a jury.the strange dissent Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, penned in which he essentially argued he would have allowed the man in this case to be found guilty and subject to execution. Things start to go off the rails when Thomas argues SCOTUS goes out of its way to protect murderers while allowing rights to be taken from “law-abiding citizens.
” Friend of Slate David H. Gans, director of the Human Rights, Civil Rights, and Citizenship Program at the Constitutional Accountability Center, writes about howhas “a long but often forgotten history linked to the pursuit of inclusive democracy. ” He implores Congress to invoke this clause to make a case for new voting rights legislation that can address the post-that reinstates Alabama electoral maps that lower courts consistently found to be discriminatory toward the state’s Black voters.
In a shadow-docket order, the Republican-appointed supermajority claimed to simply be applying itsdid not just weaken the Voting Rights Act, “it stands for the proposition that there are no more Black voting rights. ” Thank you for reading Executive Dysfunction! We’re thrilled to be in your feeds and will be back with more dysfunction analysis next
Please follow us on Google to support us Capitol-Riot Department-Of-Justice Executive-Dysfunction Jurisprudence
United States Latest News, United States Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Congo's Ebola Fight Relies on Kitchen Heroes Amid Food CrisisIn Bunia, Congo, a local cook's daily meals for Ebola patients and health workers have become essential to the outbreak response, highlighting the intersection of nutrition, health care and humanitarian aid in a region already plagued by conflict and severe food insecurity.
Read more »
Contributor: California is at the center of the fight against Parkinson'sWith its world-class universities, research hospitals and biotech industry, and Senate Bill 895 making its way to Sacramento, the state has a duty to go all in on Parkinson’s research.
Read more »
The Fight Over Worst-Case Climate Scenarios Reveals a Science Communication FailureThe debate around RCP8.5, a high-emission climate scenario, highlights how misinterpretations of scientific updates can fuel distrust. Climate scenarios are tools, not predictions, used to explore responses to different human actions. Updates reflecting reduced emissions are scientific successes, but media framing often treats them as failures, overlooking uncertainty and progress. This erodes public understanding and creates openings for disinformation.
Read more »
Sanders says Platner has the 'guts' to fight billionaires despite growing scandal pileupSen. Bernie Sanders says billionaires are targeting Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner amid growing scandals, including a Nazi-linked tattoo.
Read more »