On January 29, 2026, President Trump filed a $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for the unlawful leak of his tax returns in 2019 by a government contractor who was later convicted and sentenced. The Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a “settlement” that establishes a $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” using taxpayer dollars. If permitted to proceed, this Fund will be used to compensate people who claim they were unfairly targeted by the federal government. People who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, such as Enrique Tarrio, the former Proud Boys leader, and Jake Lang, who used a bat to attack Capitol Police officers, are already seeking payments from the Fund.

In response to overwhelming bipartisan outrage, the DOJ has made ambiguous, out-of-court statements that do nothing to stop the DOJ from moving forward with establishing the Fund after the court order expires. In a recent statement, the President has been unequivocal that he has not “dropped” the Fund. Without a court order or legislation, the Trump Administration can still move forward with this historic act of corruption.

The senators’ brief urges the court to stop the DOJ from implementing the unconstitutional Anti-Weaponization Fund. The senators asserted their strong interest in protecting taxpayer funds from abuse and protecting Congress’ exclusive authority over federal spending, appropriations, and appointments. The senators stated that the Executive Branch cannot bypass Congressional authority to create a discretionary fund on its own, especially when the very lawsuit that sparked the settlement was a one-sided suit filed by the President against an agency in his control. While the Department of Justice has publicly stated it will not move forward with the fund, it has not withdrawn the settlement agreement and, absent a court ruling finding the agreement unlawful, it could reverse course at any time. “What is at stake in this litigation,” the senators wrote, “is not an ordinary dispute about executive spending authority or the boundaries of the clemency power. It is a question of whether the machinery of democratic government may be turned, by design and with explicit intent, against the democratic foundations it exists to serve.

In the filing, the senators argue that “The establishment of the Anti-Weaponization Fund violates the Spending, Appropriations, and Appointments Clauses of the Constitution. The Fund is also the result of a collusive settlement and therefore ineligible for Judgment Fund monies appropriated by Congress.”

They continued: “The Anti-Weaponization Fund presents an immediate and dire threat to our constitutional order and the authority of Congress. Indeed, among other purposes, the Fund is designed to compensate the insurrectionists who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6th. The existence of the Fund strikes at the core of Congressional authority and our Constitutional order.”

Key Arguments from the Brief:

Violations of the Spending and Appropriations Clauses

• The Executive Branch cannot draw money from the Treasury or create new spending streams without a law passed by Congress. The Fund bypasses both constitutional provisions by spending and distributing federal dollars outside the appropriations process.

Violation of the Appointments Clause

• The Fund delegates broad authority to distribute taxpayer money to individuals who were not appointed in a manner consistent with the Constitution. The Appointments Clause exists to prevent exactly this kind of unchecked executive power.

The “Settlement” is the Result of a Collusive Lawsuit

• The President’s lawsuit against the IRS was not a real adversarial proceeding because as head of the Executive Branch, he controls the IRS and DOJ. Because the lawsuit was collusive and did not belong in a federal court, there was no “actual or imminent litigation” that would allow the DOJ to draw $1.7 billion from the taxpayer-funded Judgment Fund.

Use of Public Money to Benefit January 6 Defendants

• Within days of the Fund’s announcement, people who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, including those who attacked law enforcement, began seeking payments. Directing federal dollars to individuals who attacked the Capitol and criminally assaulted 140 police officers would convert public funds into a reward for those who attacked the very institution responsible for federal appropriations.

Dangerous Precedent for Future Administrations

• Using public money to end-run Congress and create an executive discretionary fund invites future administrations to deploy similar tactics, undermining accountability and the separation of powers.

U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA) also joined Booker in submitting the amicus brief.

Senators Booker and Cassidy were represented by the Washington Litigation Group, Platkin LLP, and Democracy Defenders Fund in this matter.

Read the full text of the amicus brief here.

###