President Donald Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, and the Trump Organization filed a voluntary dismissal with prejudice of their $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS and the Treasury Department on May 18, 2026 [1][2]. The dismissal was filed two days before a court-imposed deadline requiring both parties to address whether the arrangement constituted unconstitutional collusion or executive self-dealing [3]. Simultaneously, the Department of Justice announced the creation of a $1.776 billion "Anti-Weaponization Fund" to compensate individuals who allege they were targeted by law enforcement actions taken during the Biden administration [1][2].
The underlying lawsuit, filed in federal court in Miami, alleged that the IRS and Treasury had improperly scrutinized Trump and his business interests. The $10 billion figure represented the plaintiffs' claimed damages. The Anti-Weaponization Fund, as structured by the DOJ, is not limited to the Trump plaintiffs; it is broadly available to any person asserting they were subject to politically motivated federal enforcement during the prior administration [1][2]. The fund's name and scope place it within the broader "anti-weaponization" legislative and executive agenda the Trump administration has pursued since 2025.
Federal Judge Kathleen Williams, presiding in the Southern District of Florida, accepted the voluntary dismissal and formally closed the case [2][3]. The timing, just before the constitutional-scrutiny deadline, drew attention from legal observers. JURIST reported that the court had been positioned to examine whether the settlement arrangement itself raised separation-of-powers concerns, given that a sitting president was, in effect, resolving a suit his own executive branch had been defending [3]. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche was identified in connection with the DOJ's announcement of the fund [1].
The with-prejudice designation bars the Trump plaintiffs from refiling the same claims. The Anti-Weaponization Fund now moves to an administrative implementation phase, where criteria for claimant eligibility, evidentiary standards, and disbursement procedures remain to be defined publicly. Legal challenges to the fund's structure, including potential separation-of-powers or appropriations-clause objections from outside parties, represent the most immediate litigation risk. No congressional authorization for the fund has been publicly identified in the sourced reporting, a gap that could invite scrutiny from oversight bodies or prospective challengers.