Profiting From the Presidency

The $10 Billion Suit

Trump Sued His Own Government for $10 Billion, and His Former Lawyer Struck a Deal

Select a Section to Explore

Chapter 1 — Trump Sued the Government He Runs

Chapter 2 — DOJ Tried to Cancel Trump's $83.3 Million Judgment

Chapter 3 — The Government Served His Private Financial Interests

1 · Trump Sued the Government He Runs

1 · Trump Sued the Government He Runs — select a subtopic

1.1 — A $10 Billion Demand and No Government Defense

1.2 — A Billion-Dollar Fund and Protection From Tax Claims

1.3 — A Court Blocked the Fund; DOJ Revoked Its Funding Order

1.4 — Williams Sanctioned Trump and His Lawyers

1.5 — The Tax Leak Did Not Justify This Deal

1 · Trump Sued the Government He Runs

1.1 · Trump Sued the Government He Runs

A $10 Billion Demand and No Government Defense

Trump, his sons and his company sued the IRS and Treasury for at least $10 billion. His Justice Department did not appear to defend the government for 109 days. His former defense lawyer, running DOJ, announced a deal a judge later found collusive.

Press gaggle aboard Air Force One en route to Palm Beach, Florida (Roll Call Factbase transcript of the White House recording)

I'm supposed to work out a settlement with myself.

Donald J. Trump, President of the United States · January 31, 2026

Read the full chapter — all the detail, fully footnoted →

Sources

[1]Complaint, ECF 1, Trump v. Internal Revenue Service, No. 1:26-cv-20609-KMW (S.D. Fla. Jan. 29, 2026)

[2]Order on the motion for relief from judgment, ECF 106, Trump v. Internal Revenue Service, No. 1:26-cv-20609-KMW (S.D. Fla. July 13, 2026) (Williams, J.), 56 pp.

[3]U.S. Department of Justice, official biography of the Acting Attorney General (retrieved Aug. 5, 2026)

[4]U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, "Justice Department Announces Anti-Weaponization Fund" (May 18, 2026)

[5]U.S. Senate roll call vote 230, confirmation of Todd Blanche as Attorney General (August 8, 2026)

[6]Settlement Agreement, as published by the U.S. Department of Justice (May 18, 2026)

[7]Letter from Rep. Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member, House Committee on the Judiciary, to Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche (Apr. 6, 2026)

[8]Press gaggle aboard Air Force One en route to Palm Beach, Florida (Jan. 31, 2026) — Roll Call Factbase transcript, 137 speaker turns

1.2 · Trump Sued the Government He Runs

A Billion-Dollar Fund and Protection From Tax Claims

DOJ promised a $1.776 billion fund for other claimants and no cash to Trump or his fellow plaintiffs. Blanche also signed a release intended to protect their tax affairs. Williams found that its audit provision contravened federal law; she left its private enforceability undecided.

May 22, 2026 statement, reproduced from Politico reporting in Judge Williams's July 13 order, footnote 47

I gave up a lot of money in allowing the just announced Anti-Weaponization Fund to go forward.

Donald J. Trump, President of the United States · May 22, 2026

Read the full chapter — all the detail, fully footnoted →

Sources

[2]Order on the motion for relief from judgment, ECF 106, Trump v. Internal Revenue Service, No. 1:26-cv-20609-KMW (S.D. Fla. July 13, 2026) (Williams, J.), 56 pp.

[4]U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, "Justice Department Announces Anti-Weaponization Fund" (May 18, 2026)

[6]Settlement Agreement, as published by the U.S. Department of Justice (May 18, 2026)

[9]Senators Sheldon Whitehouse and Richard Durbin, letter to Todd Blanche (May 26, 2026)

[10]Todd Blanche, August 2, 2026 rescission of May 18 funding order; accompanying DOJ statement and July 15 confirmation transcript

1.3 · Trump Sued the Government He Runs

A Court Blocked the Fund; DOJ Revoked Its Funding Order

A judge blocked the fund on May 29, 2026 and entered a preliminary injunction on June 12. Blanche rescinded the funding order on August 2. No one was paid, and the separate release was not rescinded; its private enforceability remains undecided.

Read the full chapter — all the detail, fully footnoted →

Sources

[2]Order on the motion for relief from judgment, ECF 106, Trump v. Internal Revenue Service, No. 1:26-cv-20609-KMW (S.D. Fla. July 13, 2026) (Williams, J.), 56 pp.

[4]U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, "Justice Department Announces Anti-Weaponization Fund" (May 18, 2026)

[6]Settlement Agreement, as published by the U.S. Department of Justice (May 18, 2026)

[10]Todd Blanche, August 2, 2026 rescission of May 18 funding order; accompanying DOJ statement and July 15 confirmation transcript

[11]Representative Brian Fitzpatrick, letter to Todd Blanche (May 20, 2026)

[12]Representative Brian Fitzpatrick, announcement of the Bipartisan Transparency for American Taxpayers Act (May 21, 2026)

[13]Order, ECF 31, Floyd v. DOJ, No. 1:26-cv-01399 (E.D. Va. May 29, 2026), Brinkema, J.

[14]Preliminary injunction, ECF 85, Floyd v. DOJ (E.D. Va. June 12, 2026)

[15]Docket, Floyd v. Department of Justice, No. 1:26-cv-01399 (E.D. Va.), page 3, updated October 8, 2026; last known filing October 2

[16]Memorandum opinion, ECF 20, CREW v. DOJ, No. 1:26-cv-01789 (D.D.C. June 23, 2026), Leon, J.

1.4 · Trump Sued the Government He Runs

Williams Sanctioned Trump and His Lawyers

Williams found bad faith and collusion and imposed sanctions reaching Trump himself. She barred the parties from claiming an official settlement in this lawsuit and found monetary sanctions appropriate, with any fee award still undecided. The Eleventh Circuit refused to pause the order; the appeal remains pending.

Order, ECF 106, Trump v. Internal Revenue Service, No. 1:26-cv-20609-KMW (56 pp.)

This lawsuit was not brought to vindicate rights; it was brought to manipulate the judicial process to pursue benefits unavailable in litigation because the Parties were not adverse.

Judge Kathleen M. Williams · July 13, 2026

Read the full chapter — all the detail, fully footnoted →

Sources

[2]Order on the motion for relief from judgment, ECF 106, Trump v. Internal Revenue Service, No. 1:26-cv-20609-KMW (S.D. Fla. July 13, 2026) (Williams, J.), 56 pp.

[17]Plaintiffs' Notice of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice, ECF 52, Trump v. Internal Revenue Service (S.D. Fla. May 18, 2026)

[18]Order Closing Case, ECF 62, Trump v. Internal Revenue Service (S.D. Fla. May 18, 2026) (Williams, J.)

[19]Order denying stay, ECF 130, Trump v. IRS (S.D. Fla. September 14, 2026), Williams, J.

[20]Order denying stay, ECF 68, Trump v. Thirty-Five Former Federal Judges, No. 26-12692 (11th Cir. September 29, 2026), Jordan, Rosenbaum and Newsom, JJ.

[21]Federal Judicial Center, biography of Kevin Christopher Newsom (captured October 10, 2026)

[22]Docket, Trump v. Internal Revenue Service, No. 1:26-cv-20609 (S.D. Fla.), page 2, updated October 5, 2026, last known filing September 15

1.5 · Trump Sued the Government He Runs

The Tax Leak Did Not Justify This Deal

Trump suffered a real tax leak and had a right to sue. His lawyers defended DOJ's settlement authority and the other plaintiffs' independent claims. Williams rejected the lawsuit's supposed independence and found its claims late and its damages demand unsupported.

Read the full chapter — all the detail, fully footnoted →

Sources

[2]Order on the motion for relief from judgment, ECF 106, Trump v. Internal Revenue Service, No. 1:26-cv-20609-KMW (S.D. Fla. July 13, 2026) (Williams, J.), 56 pp.

[4]U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, "Justice Department Announces Anti-Weaponization Fund" (May 18, 2026)

[10]Todd Blanche, August 2, 2026 rescission of May 18 funding order; accompanying DOJ statement and July 15 confirmation transcript

2 · DOJ Tried to Cancel Trump's $83.3 Million Judgment

2 · DOJ Tried to Cancel Trump's $83.3 Million Judgment — select a subtopic

2.1 — Carroll Would Lose Her Judgment, Not Gain a Government Payer

2.2 — The Appeals Court Rejected the Defense; DOJ Asked the Supreme Court

2 · DOJ Tried to Cancel Trump's $83.3 Million Judgment

2.1 · DOJ Tried to Cancel Trump's $83.3 Million Judgment

Carroll Would Lose Her Judgment, Not Gain a Government Payer

A civil jury had already found that Trump sexually abused E. Jean Carroll and defamed her. A later damages trial awarded her $83.3 million. Trump and DOJ asked to replace him with the United States, which would end her defamation case rather than make taxpayers pay her.

Opinion of August 8, 2025, quoting the court's earlier decision in the same litigation, reprinted as Appendix B to the certiorari petition in United States v. Carroll, No. 26-142

So substituting the United States in place of Trump means the failure of Carroll’s defamation lawsuit.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · August 8, 2025

Read the full chapter — all the detail, fully footnoted →

Sources

[23]Opinions on the petitions for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, Carroll v. Trump, No. 24-644 (2d Cir. Apr. 29, 2026) — the court's own complete PDF, containing the denial, the statement of Chin, Sr. Cir. J., and the dissent of Menashi, Cir. J., joined by Park, Cir. J., and by Chief Judge Livingston except as to Part II.E.1

[24]Petition for a writ of certiorari, United States v. E. Jean Carroll, et al., No. 26-142 (U.S., filed July 28, 2026), with the June 18, 2025 order as Appendix A, the August 8, 2025 Second Circuit opinion as Appendix B, and 28 U.S.C. 2679 as Appendix E

2.2 · DOJ Tried to Cancel Trump's $83.3 Million Judgment

The Appeals Court Rejected the Defense; DOJ Asked the Supreme Court

DOJ argued that Trump's statements were official work and could be recertified after trial. Three appellate judges favored that position. The Second Circuit rejected substitution on statutory, waiver and equity grounds; DOJ's Supreme Court petition remained pending as of October 10, 2026.

Read the full chapter — all the detail, fully footnoted →

Sources

[25]28 U.S.C. § 2679 (United States Code, 2024 edition) — the Westfall Act's certification and exclusive-remedy provisions

[26]Council on American-Islamic Relations v. Ballenger, No. 05-5161 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 11, 2006) (per curiam) (Sentelle, Rogers, Griffith, JJ.), 444 F.3d 659

[27]Docket, Carroll v. Trump, No. 24-644 (2d Cir.), CourtListener docket 68985738 (retrieved Aug. 5, 2026)

[28]Supreme Court docket, United States v. Carroll, No. 26-142 (captured October 10, 2026)

3 · The Government Served His Private Financial Interests

3 · The Government Served His Private Financial Interests — select a subtopic

3.1 — The Charge Is Self-Dealing

3 · The Government Served His Private Financial Interests

3.1 · The Government Served His Private Financial Interests

The Charge Is Self-Dealing

Trump sought money and tax protection through agencies he controlled, and DOJ tried to extinguish his personal debt to Carroll. The fund failed and the demand went unpaid. The charge is the use of public power for his own financial protection.

Read the full chapter — all the detail, fully footnoted →

Sources

[1]Complaint, ECF 1, Trump v. Internal Revenue Service, No. 1:26-cv-20609-KMW (S.D. Fla. Jan. 29, 2026)

[2]Order on the motion for relief from judgment, ECF 106, Trump v. Internal Revenue Service, No. 1:26-cv-20609-KMW (S.D. Fla. July 13, 2026) (Williams, J.), 56 pp.

[10]Todd Blanche, August 2, 2026 rescission of May 18 funding order; accompanying DOJ statement and July 15 confirmation transcript

[28]Supreme Court docket, United States v. Carroll, No. 26-142 (captured October 10, 2026)

[29]18 U.S.C. § 202(c) (United States Code, 2024 edition)

[30]Trump v. United States, No. 23-939, 603 U.S. 593 (2024) (slip opinion)

[31]U.S. Constitution, art. II, § 1, cl. 7 and art. II, § 4 (National Archives transcription)

[32]Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 65 (1788) (Avalon Project, Yale Law School)

[33]Deschler's Precedents of the United States House of Representatives, Vol. 3, Ch. 14 § 15, "Impeachment Proceedings Against President Nixon," printed page 2177

[34]DOJ-published Stipulation for Compromise Settlement and Release, Flynn v. United States, No. 8:23-cv-00485 (March 2026)