Jun 26, 2026 · 30 min · 9 segments
Brandon DeBot of the Tax Law Center at New York University discusses President Trump’s lawsuit and subsequent settlement with the IRS, where things stand with the "Anti-Weaponization" Fund, and…
Brandon DeBotGuest
Mary Katherine BrownDavid StewartHost
Under the private agreement, Trump and the other plaintiffs don't receive any monetary payments.
However, they receive a formal apology from the IRS and the creation of a compensation fund that would provide a systemic process to hear claims of others who have suffered from alleged weaponization and lawfare.
The Anti-Weaponization fund is supposed to be a one point eight billion dollar fund drawn from Treasury's Judgment Fund, a standing congressional appropriation used to pay valid court judgments and settlements.
The fund is designed to be s- overseen by a five-member commission appointed by the attorney general, with one member being chosen in consultation with congressional leadership.
The commission was supposed to submit quarterly reports to the attorney general, but faces no obligation to publicly disclose its procedures, decision-making process, or the identities of fund recipients.
Separately, the acting attorney general signed a May nineteenth order establishing a broad release clause that permanently bars the government from pursuing any claims arising from tax returns filed by Trump, his family members, affiliated individuals, trusts, and entities.
Well, currently there's four cases challenging the Anti-Weaponization Fund.
Department of Justice in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, and then there's three cases in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
There's Dunn v. Trump, Gordon v. Blanche, and Crew versus Department of Justice.
Recently, the judge issued a permanent injunction against the Anti-Weaponization Fund, stating she would drop the case if the associate attorney general and the treasury secretary would sign a declaration under penalties of perjury that they wouldn't take any action to create or operate the fund, and the fund wouldn't proceed in any manner.
On June nineteenth, the government filed a notice stating that they wouldn't be submitting a signed declaration, arguing that the declarations were unnecessary and compelling testimony from senior officials raises separation of powers concerns.
On top of these cases, Judge Kathleen Williams of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida is considering reopening the initial Trump v. IRS case after thirty-five retired federal court judges filed a motion urging her to investigate whether the settlement underlying the Anti-Weaponization Fund was a product of collusion and a fraud upon the court.
Under the private agreement, Trump and the other plaintiffs don't receive any monetary payments.
However, they receive a formal apology from the IRS and the creation of a compensation fund that would provide a systemic process to hear claims of others who have suffered from alleged weaponization and lawfare.
The Anti-Weaponization fund is supposed to be a one point eight billion dollar fund drawn from Treasury's Judgment Fund, a standing congressional appropriation used to pay valid court judgments and settlements.
The fund is designed to be s- overseen by a five-member commission appointed by the attorney general, with one member being chosen in consultation with congressional leadership.
The commission was supposed to submit quarterly reports to the attorney general, but faces no obligation to publicly disclose its procedures, decision-making process, or the identities of fund recipients.
Separately, the acting attorney general signed a May nineteenth order establishing a broad release clause that permanently bars the government from pursuing any claims arising from tax returns filed by Trump, his family members, affiliated individuals, trusts, and entities.
Well, currently there's four cases challenging the Anti-Weaponization Fund.
Department of Justice in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, and then there's three cases in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
There's Dunn v. Trump, Gordon v. Blanche, and Crew versus Department of Justice.
Recently, the judge issued a permanent injunction against the Anti-Weaponization Fund, stating she would drop the case if the associate attorney general and the treasury secretary would sign a declaration under penalties of perjury that they wouldn't take any action to create or operate the fund, and the fund wouldn't proceed in any manner.
On June nineteenth, the government filed a notice stating that they wouldn't be submitting a signed declaration, arguing that the declarations were unnecessary and compelling testimony from senior officials raises separation of powers concerns.
On top of these cases, Judge Kathleen Williams of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida is considering reopening the initial Trump v. IRS case after thirty-five retired federal court judges filed a motion urging her to investigate whether the settlement underlying the Anti-Weaponization Fund was a product of collusion and a fraud upon the court.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.