US judge nullifies Trump deal to resolve IRS lawsuit in scathing ruling

A federal judge has overturned a controversial agreement between Donald Trump and his sons aimed at resolving a lawsuit concerning the leak of the former president's tax returns. U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams in Florida issued a scathing ruling, nullifying the deal and criticizing both the government and Trump's legal team for attempting to manipulate the judicial process.

The agreement, which had drawn bipartisan backlash, would have settled a $10 billion lawsuit filed by Trump and his sons over the leak of his tax information. It proposed creating a $1.8 billion fund to compensate victims of alleged "government weaponization" and, crucially, would have granted Trump, his family, and related entities immunity from future tax audits. The Justice Department had previously announced it was scrapping the fund, but the tax immunity provisions remained.

“

The nature of the suit itself and the conduct of the parties and counsel from its filing make plain that this was an attempt to use the court to provide some legitimacy to an agreement to confer immunity to people and entities affiliated with the president and to earmark billions of dollars from American taxpayers to redress grievances not defined in the law.

Judge Williams, nominated by Barack Obama, declared that the case lacked a genuine controversy, a prerequisite for any lawsuit, particularly since Trump, as president, effectively controlled the Treasury Department. She found the lawsuit was initiated for an "improper purpose" – to secure judicial legitimacy for a settlement devoid of legal or factual grounding. Consequently, she sanctioned Trump's lawyers for their conduct.

Her ruling prohibits Trump, his sons, their businesses, and the government from using or citing any aspect of the "settlement" in any future proceedings. The case was reopened at the urging of retired federal judges, leading to Williams' detailed 56-page decision. She cited evidence suggesting the lawsuit was filed in bad faith, including a lawyer's failure to seek permission to appear in the district, which she interpreted as a sign the case was not intended to be pursued seriously. The ruling effectively halts any attempt to legitimize the controversial deal.

“

The court finds that this matter 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.