2026-05-18T23:31:34.690Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/18/politics/what-to-know-trump-weaponization-fund-for-allies
唐纳德·特朗普总统多年前就国税局未经授权披露其税单一事提起的前所未有的诉讼，催生了一项前所未有的安排：将近18亿美元纳税人资金拨付给那些声称此前曾遭到政府不公平调查的总统盟友。
司法部周一宣布设立的“反武器化基金”立刻招致民主党人、公共利益团体和前政府官员的批评，他们认为特朗普正在利用自己掌控的政府权力，为其支持者设立一个庞大的“小金库”。
“这极不寻常。在我看来，这是一个相当拙劣的企图，旨在绕过常规程序，将联邦资金 funnel 给支持总统事业和观点的人，”退休法官威廉·史密斯说道。他曾由前总统乔治·W·布什任命为罗德岛联邦法院法官。
周一晚些时候，负责审理该案的迈阿密联邦法官同意彻底结案，粉碎了法律界部分人士希望她审查特朗普司法部律师和参与该案的特朗普个人律师行为的希望。
与此同时，法律专家对任何反对该协议的人是否有能力在法庭上阻碍这一和解意见不一，他们一致认为，这是利用法律体系推进特朗普政策目标的新颖之举。
以下是关于这一事件的必知内容：
特朗普于1月以个人身份起诉国税局，起因是2019年和2020年其本人及公司的税单遭到披露。这场索赔100亿美元损害赔偿的诉讼指控该机构未能采取适当措施保护其敏感税务信息，而这些信息是由一名政府承包商泄露的，该承包商随后因非法披露税单被起诉。
尽管有一项保护纳税人隐私的法律同样保护总统的隐私，但一位在任总统起诉其政府掌控的机构仍属罕见。
“我不知道还有哪位总统以特朗普选择的方式起诉国税局，”《税务纪事》杂志特约编辑约瑟夫·J·桑德克说道，他指出理查德·尼克松总统的税单也曾被泄露。“因此，我也不知道国税局曾与在任总统达成过任何和解。”
“总统是行政部门的最高负责人，当他起诉行政部门时，实际上是在起诉自己，”曾在司法部任职多年、现任反对司法部政治化组织“正义联结”负责人的斯泰西·扬说道。
特朗普提出的诉讼请求似乎已超出两年诉讼时效，该时效从某人得知其信息被不当披露时开始计算。
众议院民主党人在一份法庭文件中称，就算以对特朗普最有利的时间线来看，他也应在2025年10月前提起诉讼，因为早在2023年10月该政府承包商的认罪听证会时，特朗普的一名私人律师就代表他出席了该程序，他肯定已经知晓信息被泄露一事。
其次，司法部在特朗普诉讼面前妥协的方式，与该部门此前在类似非法披露索赔案中为国税局辩护的方式大相径庭——包括由其他个人和实体提起的集体诉讼，这些人的税务信息也被同一承包商泄露。司法部曾试图驳回针对国税局的这起案件，但未成功。
特朗普本人曾吹嘘自己的独特地位让他同时站在谈判桌的两边——既是私人原告，又是监管作为被告的机构的总统。“我本应与自己达成和解，”案件提起后不久他对记者说道。
圣托马斯大学法学院教授、前司法部律师格雷戈里·西斯克表示，特朗普的言论凸显了“行政部门中总统过多参与司法部活动所带来的后果”。
“过去，总统绝不会参与这类问题，以避免哪怕是出现任何腐败或不当影响的表象，”西斯克说道。
司法部代理部长托德·布兰奇表示，司法部周一称，为解决这起诉讼，将设立一项基金，赔偿所有“遭遇法律战和武器化迫害的受害者”。布兰奇曾作为特朗普的私人律师团队成员，参与特别检察官杰克·史密斯对这位前总统提起的刑事诉讼。
该基金还将解决特朗普针对司法部提出的两项行政索赔：一是在机密文件调查中对海湖庄园执行搜查令的问题，二是对2016年总统大选俄罗斯干预调查的问题。
款项将来自司法部的“判决基金”，这是国会为政府达成的金钱和解预留的纳税人资金池。
司法部称，申请索赔没有党派要求。该基金将由一个委员会管理，委员会成员由特朗普任命的司法部长挑选，总统可随时将其免职。声明称，五名成员中的一名将通过与国会“磋商”选出。
南加州大学古尔德法学院教授亚当·齐默尔曼专门研究涉及政府的集体诉讼和和解事宜，他表示，尽管以往总统也曾促成涉及私营实体的重大和解以推进其议程，但周一宣布的这项协议与以往情况“相去甚远”，因为本案涉及的各方身份特殊。
齐默尔曼表示，特朗普正在“利用其私人身份和作为私人诉讼当事人的地位，实现与其政府相关的所有这些公共目标”。
司法部周一晚些时候公布了这项庭外和解的细节。
“总统起诉政府，随后和解金额如此庞大，且将流向其盟友，这太荒谬了。司法部内任何有道德操守的律师都应该明白这一点，”扬说道，她认为特朗普利用诉讼程序让这笔赔偿基金看起来比实际更“合理”。
尽管特朗普的反对者在试图阻止该协议时面临程序障碍，但批评人士指出了司法部宣布的基金以及引发该基金的诉讼存在的若干法律问题。
首先，存在一项核心宪法要求：法院审理案件必须存在真实的“案件”或“争议”。
特朗普诉讼的受理法院——迈阿密的奥巴马任命法官凯瑟琳·威廉姆斯此前就对这一问题表示担忧，并曾寻求外部律师就如何看待该问题提供简报。
特朗普的律师周一早些时候在文件中辩称，既然总统已决定撤诉，威廉姆斯就无权再过问此事，而她做出结案决定意味着，关于该诉讼是否恰当提交的问题将不了了之。
威廉姆斯在结案裁定中指出，法庭上没有该和解协议的正式记录。“由于该通知未提及任何和解，也未包含和解协议，因此没有记录在案的和解，”威廉姆斯写道。
此外，威廉姆斯表示，本应保持独立的司法部并未在法庭上说明为何认为有必要达成和解。
“被告——由司法部代表的联邦机构，有责任维护‘公众了解政府行为和资源使用情况的强烈利益’以及‘公正司法的公平管理’——既未提交任何和解文件，也未提交任何文件，以确保在存在实际案件或争议是否存在的悬而未决问题时，和解是恰当的，”威廉姆斯写道。
政府批评人士还辩称，考虑到诉讼时效问题以及联邦政府本可提出的其他抗辩理由，特朗普诉讼中的主张根本不值得司法部考虑和解。
根据联邦法律，司法部长仅在政府面临“迫在眉睫的诉讼”时才有权力达成和解协议，而有关判决基金的相关规定也将其限制在“实际或迫在眉睫的诉讼”范围内。
众议院民主党人在周一特朗普提交撤诉通知后几分钟内提交的一份法庭之友简报中写道：“一场虚假或串通的诉讼，法院没有管辖权——更不用说为了避免管辖权裁决而自愿撤诉的诉讼——不属于‘实际或迫在眉睫的诉讼’。”
针对这项新协议，法律观察人士提出了依据宪法《薪酬条款》提起诉讼的可能性，该条款禁止总统获得超出其薪水的政府支付款项；也可依据《行政程序法》提起诉讼，该法律允许诉讼当事人在某些情况下挑战违反法律的政府机构行为。
尽管如此，目前尚不清楚谁能证明自己因该基金受到损害，从而具备在法庭上挑战该基金的资格。最高法院的先例仅在极其有限的情况下排除了纳税人的起诉资格。
“起诉资格通常很难获得，但并非不可能，”前法官史密斯告诉CNN。“因此，在我看来，反对团体至少会尝试主张纳税人起诉资格，这是可以想象的。”
“如果没有任何努力阻止它，我会感到震惊，”他说道。
司法部声明称，该基金有先例可循，特别提到了奥巴马时代司法部在一起指控农业部歧视原住民农民和牧场主的案件中达成和解后设立的赔偿计划。
然而，深度参与这起名为“基普西格尔诉维尔萨克案”的律师表示，两种情况完全不同。
2011年，集体诉讼案的传统和解方案获得批准，并在法院监督下执行。但当和解款项发放时，6.8亿美元的赔偿中有3.8亿美元未被认领，且和解条款中没有规定未认领资金可返还政府。
经过多轮谈判，各方同意设立一个项目，向为原住民牧场和农业社区服务的组织发放赠款——这些社区正是最初集体诉讼的参与方。
“这才是关键问题。你必须服务于提起诉讼的案件中利害攸关的同一社区，”代表原住民原告的律师约瑟夫·塞勒斯说道。
一名法官监督了该基金的设立计划，甚至批准了用于确定谁有资格获得赠款的标准。
“即便如此，我们也必须向法院证明，资金的发放方式将服务于提起诉讼的社区的相同利益，”塞勒斯告诉CNN。
特朗普与国税局达成的协议完全没有考虑对新基金进行此类司法监督。事实上，特朗普律师的简短撤诉通知特意强调，既然他要撤诉，法官就无权再过问此事。
具有讽刺意味的是，基普西格尔基金曾遭到共和党人的严厉批评，特朗普的第一任司法部长杰夫·塞申斯曾发布备忘录，禁止司法部达成任何“直接或向非争议方的非政府个人或实体提供付款或贷款”的和解协议。
根据当前的司法部政策，任何为非争议方设立付款计划的和解“必须与执法行动中涉及的联邦法律违规行为存在紧密关联”。
CNN的凯西·甘农对本文亦有贡献。
What to know about Trump’s $1.8 billion taxpayer-fueled fund for his allies
2026-05-18T23:31:34.690Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/18/politics/what-to-know-trump-weaponization-fund-for-allies
The unprecedented lawsuit President Donald Trump brought against the Internal Revenue Service over the unauthorized disclosure of his tax returns years ago has led to an unprecedented arrangement that will make nearly $1.8 billion in taxpayer funds available to allies of the president who say they were unfairly investigated by the government in the past.
The announcement of the “Anti-Weaponization Fund” by the Justice Department on Monday immediately drew criticism from Democrats, public interest groups and former government officials who argued that Trump was using the levers of the government he controls to set up a vast piggybank for his supporters.
“It’s highly unusual. It seems to me that it’s a fairly thinly veiled attempt to funnel federal money to people that are sympathetic to the president’s cause and points of view without following the kind of usual procedures,” said retired Judge William Smith, who was appointed to the federal bench in Rhode Island by former President George W. Bush.
Later Monday, the federal judge in Miami who had been overseeing the case agreed to fully close the matter – scrambling hopes from some corners of the legal community for her to scrutinize the behavior of the Trump Justice Department attorneys and Trump’s personal lawyers who were involved in the lawsuit.
Legal experts, meanwhile, appeared torn over whether anyone opposed to the deal would have the ability to mount an effort in court to frustrate the settlement, which they agreed was a novel use of the legal system to advance Trump’s policy goals.
Here’s what to know about the issue:
Trump sued the IRS in his personal capacity in January over the disclosure of his and his company’s tax returns in 2019 and 2020. The lawsuit – seeking $10 billion in damages – accused the agency of failing to take proper steps to safeguard his sensitive tax information, which was leaked by a government contractor who has since been prosecuted for illegally releasing the returns.
While a law protecting the privacy of taxpayers protects the privacy of presidents as well, it was notable that a sitting president was suing an agency his administration controls.
“I am unaware of any other president suing the IRS in the manner that Trump has chosen to do,” said Joseph J. Thorndike, a contributing editor with Tax Notes magazine, who pointed out that President Richard Nixon’s tax returns were leaked. “And as a result, I’m not aware of the IRS having settled any suit with a sitting president.”
“The president is at top of the executive branch, when he sues the executive branch, he is in effect suing himself,” said Stacey Young, a former longtime attorney at the DOJ who now leads Justice Connection, which opposes politicization of the department.
The claims Trump was bringing appeared to be barred by a two-year statute of limitations, a clock that starts once someone becomes aware their information has been improperly disclosed.
In the version of the timeline most generous to Trump, he should have filed his claims by October 2025, House Democrats said in a court filing, because he would have certainly known of the disclosure by the October 2023 plea hearing of the government contractor given that one of his personal attorneys showed up to the proceedings on Trump’s behalf.
Secondly, the way the Justice Department folded in the face of Trump’s lawsuit is a dramatic departure from how it’s defended the IRS against similar claims of unlawful disclosure – including in a class action lawsuit brought by other individuals and entities whose tax information was also leaked by the same contractor. The Justice Department unsuccessfully tried to get that case against the IRS thrown out.
Trump himself bragged about how his unique position puts him on both sides of the negotiating table – as both the private plaintiff and the president who oversees the agency defendant. “I am supposed to work out a settlement with myself,” he told reporters soon after the case was filed.
Gregory Sisk, a professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law and former DOJ attorney, said Trump’s comments underscored “the consequences of having an Executive Branch in which the president is much more involved in the activities of the Department of Justice.”
“In the past, a president wouldn’t come anywhere near being involved with these sorts of issues to avoid even the appearance of any kind of corruption or undue influence,” Sisk said.
The Justice Department said Monday that to resolve the lawsuit, it was setting up a fund to compensate anyone who has been “victims of lawfare and weaponization,” according to acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, who was once on Trump’s personal legal team for the criminal prosecutions brought against the then-former president by special counsel Jack Smith.
The fund also resolves administrative claims that Trump had brought against the department for the search warrant executed at Mar-a-Lago in the classified documents probe, as well as for the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.
The payments will come from the DOJ’s Judgment Fund, which is a pot of taxpayer money set aside by Congress for monetary settlements the government reaches.
There will be no partisan requirements to file a claim, the department said. The fund will be run by a commission whose members are chosen by Trump’s attorney general and who can be fired by the president at any time. One of the five members will be chosen in “consultation” with Congress, the statement said.
Adam Zimmerman, a professor at The University of Southern California Gould School of Law who specializes in mass litigation and settlements involving the government, said that while previous presidents have helped broker major settlements in cases involving private entities to advance their agendas, the deal announced Monday is “leaps and bounds away” given the parties involved in the underlying case.
Trump, Zimmerman said, is “leveraging his private persona and his status as a private litigant to accomplish all of these public goals associated with his administration.”
The Justice Department released details of its out-of-court settlement late Monday.
“The idea of a president suing the government and then settling for such a massive amount that is going to go to his allies is so preposterous. Any ethical-thinking lawyer at DOJ should know that,” Young said, arguing that Trump had used the court process to make the compensation fund look more “reasonable” than it was.
Though Trump’s opponents face procedural hurdles in trying to stop the deal, his critics are flagging several legal problems with the fund DOJ announced and the lawsuit that prompted it.
Firstly, there is the overarching constitutional mandate that requires a live “case” or “controversy” for a case to proceed in court.
Judge Kathleen Williams – an Obama appointee who sits in Miami, where Trump’s lawsuit was filed – had previously raised concerns about that very issue and had sought briefing from outside lawyers on how to view the question.
Trump’s lawyers argued in filings earlier Monday that Williams had no role to play now that the president had decided to drop the case, and her decision to end it meant that questions around whether it was properly filed will go unanswered.
In her order dropping the case, Williams noted that there is no official record of the deal in court. “Because the Notice does not reference any settlement or include a stipulation of settlement, there is no settlement of record,” Williams wrote.
Furthermore, Williams said that the Justice Department, which is meant to be independent, did not lay out in court why it felt a deal was necessary.
“Defendants – federal agencies represented by the Department of Justice, which has an independent obligation to uphold the ‘public’s strong interest in knowing about the conduct of its Government and expenditure of its resources’ and the ‘fair administration of justice,’– neither submitted any settlement documents nor filed any documents ensuring that settlement was appropriate where there was an outstanding question as to whether an actual case or controversy existed,” Williams wrote.
The administration’s critics have also argued that the claims in the Trump lawsuit weren’t even serious enough for DOJ to consider settling in the first place, given the statute of limitations issues and other defenses the federal government could have mounted to it.
Under federal law, the attorney general only has authority to make settlement deals when the government is fending off “imminent litigation,” while the relevant regulations concerning the judgment fund also limits it to “actual or imminent litigation.”
The House Democrats wrote in a friend-of-the-court brief filed minutes after Trump’s dismissal notice on Monday that “a feigned or collusive suit over which no court has jurisdiction – to say nothing about one that has been voluntarily dismissed to avoid a jurisdictional ruling – is not ‘actual or imminent litigation.’”
In response to the new deal, legal observers have floated lawsuits under the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause, which prohibits the president from receiving government payments that go beyond his salary, or under the Administrative Procedures Act, which allows litigants to challenge in some circumstances actions by government agencies that run afoul of the law.
Still, it’s not clear who could show they’re being harmed by the fund in a way that would establish they have standing to challenge it in court. Supreme Court precedent has foreclosed taxpayer standing except in a very limited set of circumstances.
“Standing is always very difficult to get, but it’s not impossible,” Smith, the former judge, told CNN. “So it seems conceivable to me that opposition groups will at least try to assert taxpayer standing.”
“I would be shocked if there isn’t some kind of an effort to stop it in its tracks,” he said.
The Justice Department statement said there was precedent for the fund, pointing specifically to a compensation program that sprung out of an Obama-era settlement DOJ reached in a case accusing the Department of Agriculture of discrimination against tribal farmers and ranchers.
However, an attorney who was deeply involved in that case, known as Keepseagle v. Vilsack, said that the two circumstances were completely different.
A traditional settlement was approved in the class action case in 2011 and carried out under the oversight of a court. But when the settlement claims were paid, $380 million of the $680 million payout had remained unclaimed and there were no terms in the settlement allowing that money to go back to the government.
After extensive negotiations, the parties agreed to create a program dispersing grants to organizations that served Native American ranching and farming communities – the same communities that were in the original class of the lawsuit.
“That really is the critical issue. You have to serve the same community whose interests were at stake in the litigation that was brought,” said the lawyer who represented the Native Americans behind the case, Joseph Sellers.
A judge oversaw the plan to create that fund and even approved of the criteria it would use to determine who would be eligible for the grants.
“Even then, we had to satisfy the court that the funds were going to be dispersed in a way that served the same interests of the communities that brought the case,” Sellers told CNN.
The Trump-IRS deal contemplates no such judicial oversight of the new fund. In fact, his lawyers’ otherwise brief dismissal notice went out of its way to stress that the judge had no role to play now that he was dropping the case.
Ironically, the Keepseagle fund attracted harsh Republican criticism, and Trump’s first attorney general, Jeff Sessions, issued a memo that barred any DOJ settlement that “directs or provides for a payment or loan to any non-governmental person or entity that is not a party to the dispute.”
Under the current DOJ policy, any settlement that creates a payment program for parties not in a dispute “must have a strong connection to the underlying violation or violations of federal law at issue in the enforcement action.”
CNN’s Casey Gannon contributed to this report.