A federal judge in Florida could have the power to halt President Donald Trump's $1.8 billion IRS settlement, according to an opinion piece published Friday in The Hill by Nick Akerman, a former assistant special Watergate prosecutor and former assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York.
The settlement, reached between Trump, the Justice Department, and the IRS, created a fund for individuals who were allegedly targeted by the Biden administration for political reasons. The agreement also granted Trump, his family members, and his businesses civil and criminal immunity for all IRS matters "currently pending or that could be pending."
U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams of the Southern District of Florida presided over Trump's original lawsuit against the IRS, which alleged that the agency leaked his confidential tax information during his first term in office.
On April 24, Judge Williams directed Trump, the IRS, and public interest amicus parties to provide legal memoranda by May 20 addressing whether Trump's lawsuit was legitimate given his position as president and because "his named adversaries are entities whose decisions are subject to his direction."
To preempt a ruling from Judge Williams on the lawsuit's legitimacy, Trump filed a notice of dismissal on May 18 — two days before the court-requested memoranda were due.
What the Right Is Saying
Supporters of the settlement argue that it resolves legitimate grievances related to alleged government overreach against Trump during the previous administration. The agreement's defenders maintain that addressing claims of political targeting through a legal settlement, rather than prolonged litigation, serves the interest of finality and good governance.
Proponents note that courts routinely approve settlements between parties, including those involving sitting presidents, without second-guessing the underlying motivations of either party.
What the Left Is Saying
Akerman writes that Trump's original lawsuit was "a total fraud on its face" and constituted the mechanism for what he describes as a "major rip-off on the public." The opinion piece argues there was no legitimate case or controversy because Trump controlled both sides of the litigation — suing the IRS and Treasury, which were defended by the Justice Department, all under his direction.
The piece states that without this lawsuit, "there would be no justification whatsoever for this settlement" and calls on Judge Williams to use her inherent contempt authority to rule that no legitimate case existed, thereby invalidating the basis for the slush fund and immunity grant.
Critics from both parties have raised concerns about the settlement usurping Congress's power of the purse. Last week, two former Capitol Police officers filed a federal lawsuit asking a court to declare the $1.8 billion fund unlawful.
What the Numbers Show
The IRS settlement created a $1.8 billion fund for distribution to individuals who claimed they were targeted by the Biden administration for political reasons.
Trump's original complaint sought $10 billion in damages — far above the $1,000 statutory limit per unauthorized disclosure under relevant privacy statutes.
The Justice Department agreement covers civil and criminal immunity that could amount to "hundreds of millions of dollars" to Trump and his family, according to The Hill opinion piece. These figures have not been independently verified by Political Bytes.
The Bottom Line
Judge Williams granted Trump's motion to dismiss the underlying case on May 18. However, Akerman's opinion argues she retains inherent contempt authority to rule that no legitimate legal controversy existed — meaning there was no valid basis for the settlement or immunity grant.
Congressional lawmakers from both parties are reportedly discussing legislative fixes to address concerns about executive overreach in spending matters. The former Capitol Police officers' lawsuit represents another potential avenue for challenging the fund's legality.
The outcome of these concurrent challenges could determine whether the $1.8 billion fund remains intact or is ruled unlawful. Political Bytes will continue monitoring developments from official court filings and government statements.