His own Justice Department

A $1.8 billion taxpayer fund, created by settling his own lawsuit

$1.776B fund announced; $0 paid

Trump, his sons, and his company sued the IRS for $10B. His Justice Department settled with an apology and a $1.776B “Anti-Weaponization Fund” of taxpayer money for third-party claimants. The department abandoned the fund weeks later, and a federal judge ruled that the lawsuit was brought for an improper purpose and in bad faith, since Trump controls both sides. Nothing was paid; Trump is appealing.

Their response: Todd Blanche, then acting attorney general: “the machinery of government should never be weaponized”; later, “We are not moving forward with the fund, period.”

Sources: Justice Department · NPR · The judge’s order, Trump v. IRS (July 13, 2026) · CBS News

The tax leak behind the suit: the leaker got five years, and another victim settled for an apology

IRS contractor Charles Littlejohn pleaded guilty in October 2023 to leaking the tax returns of Trump and thousands of wealthy Americans, and on January 29, 2024 was sentenced to five years in prison, the maximum, in a case brought by the Biden-era Justice Department. Hedge fund manager Ken Griffin sued over the same leak in 2022; the department fought him for about 18 months, and in June 2024 he dropped the case in exchange for a public IRS apology and no money. The law’s damages include “$1,000 for each act of unauthorized inspection or disclosure” and victims have two years from discovery to sue; Trump’s lawyer Alina Habba spoke for him as a victim at the October 12, 2023 plea hearing, and he sued for $10 billion on January 29, 2026, two years and three months later. Judge Kathleen Williams later wrote: “In every case naming the government as a defendant, the DOJ engaged in a vigorous defense. That is, every case until the instant litigation.”

Their response: Trump’s complaint says he “did not discover the numerous violations” until an IRS notification letter dated January 29, 2024, which would make the suit timely. His appeal brief says: “The perpetrator of this egregious leak pleaded guilty and received the maximum prison sentence. The IRS itself acknowledged it failed to prevent his criminal conduct.” The judge agreed that “President Trump had a legal right to bring a suit for the unlawful disclosure” but said any remedy was limited by the statute of limitations and the damages the law allows.

Sources: Justice Department case page, United States v. Charles E. Littlejohn · IRS statement resolving Kenneth C. Griffin v. IRS (June 25, 2024) · Politico (June 25, 2024) · Order, Trump v. IRS, S.D. Fla. No. 26-cv-20609, Doc. 106 (July 13, 2026) · Complaint, Trump v. IRS, Doc. 1 (Jan. 29, 2026)

Both sides of the IRS deal were signed by lawyers with prior ties to Trump or his co-defendant

No cash to Trump under the agreement

The May 18, 2026 settlement of Trump v. IRS was signed for Trump by Daniel Epstein, a former Trump White House associate counsel who had never entered an appearance in the case, and for the government by Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, who had represented Trump’s co-defendant Walt Nauta and several January 6 defendants, and by IRS chief executive Frank Bisignano; the two orders carrying it out were signed by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Trump’s former criminal defense lawyer. In the 109 days the case was open, no government lawyer filed an appearance or any paper, and the deal was struck four days after court-appointed lawyers briefed the judge on whether she had jurisdiction at all. Under its terms Trump, his two sons and his company “will receive a formal apology from the United States, but will not receive any monetary payment or damages of any kind”, and agreed to drop the $10 billion suit and two pending administrative claims by June 15, 2026. The court’s order notes that the Treasury’s general counsel announced his resignation the day the deal was published, and that the IRS had reportedly prepared a 25-page memo on how to defend the suit.

Their response: Blanche, in the department’s announcement: “As part of this settlement, we are setting up a lawful process for victims of lawfare and weaponization to be heard and seek redress.” Trump’s lawyers told the court the case was “ordinary” and that “Regardless of whether Plaintiffs had ever filed this action, the Government and Plaintiffs still had the power to resolve all disputes between the parties.” A department spokeswoman had told CNN days earlier, as quoted in the court’s order, that Blanche “is recused from many cases before DOJ”; the judge noted that here he “did not recuse.”

Sources: Settlement Agreement, Trump v. IRS, posted by the Justice Department (May 18, 2026) · Justice Department press release 26-512 (May 18, 2026) · Order, Trump v. IRS, S.D. Fla. No. 26-cv-20609, Doc. 106 (July 13, 2026) · CourtListener docket, Trump v. Internal Revenue Service, S.D. Fla. 1:26-cv-20609

A day after the deal, a one-page order released Trump, his family and his companies from tax claims

A 2024 report put the audit’s possible bill at $100M+ (ProPublica/NYT)

On May 19, 2026 Acting Attorney General Blanche alone signed a one-page order in which the United States “RELEASES, WAIVES, ACQUITS, and FOREVER DISCHARGES” the plaintiffs and “related or affiliated individuals”, including family and affiliated companies, from all claims including “examinations or similar or related reviews” on matters pending or that could be pending, “including tax returns filed before the Effective Date”. The department’s own fact sheet described it as releasing “the IRS’ right to audit the President, his family, and his companies.” ProPublica and the New York Times reported in 2024 that a long-running IRS audit of Trump could produce a tax bill of more than $100 million; whether that audit was still open is not public, so the value of the release to Trump is unknown. Blanche told Congress on June 2 that “nothing has changed with that” when the fund was dropped, and the department kept the release when it rescinded the fund in August.

Their response: The Justice Department’s fact sheet said the release “is standard in litigation and does not apply to future tax actions the President, his family, and his companies may take.” On August 2, 2026, under pressure from two Republican senators, the department said in writing that the order “applies by its terms only retroactively” and “only has any effect, including on any release of claims, on the named parties in the lawsuit referenced in the Order.” Judge Williams wrote that the order “directly contravenes” the federal law barring executive branch officials from asking the IRS to end an audit of a particular taxpayer, and that “the conferral of possibly millions of dollars in tax relief and corollary benefits potentially violates” the Constitution’s ban on extra payments to a sitting president.

Sources: Order of the Acting Attorney General releasing claims against the plaintiffs (May 19, 2026) · Justice Department fact sheet on the fund, filed as Exhibit D in Floyd v. Department of Justice (E.D. Va.) · Justice Department statement of Aug. 2, 2026, filed as Exhibit E in Floyd v. Department of Justice · Order, Trump v. IRS, S.D. Fla. No. 26-cv-20609, Doc. 106 (July 13, 2026) · ProPublica (May 11, 2024)

The $1.776 billion fund: five appointees Trump could fire, secret procedures, no court review

$1.776B ordered from the Judgment Fund; $0 transferred

The deal called for $1.776 billion from the Treasury’s Judgment Fund, the permanent appropriation for court judgments and settlements, to be paid into an account for an “Anti-Weaponization Fund” run by five members chosen by the attorney general (one “in consultation with congressional leadership”), any of whom the president could remove “without cause”. The fund could set its own procedures and keep them private, report recipients’ names only in a “confidential written report” to the attorney general, and its decisions were subject to “no appeal, arbitration, or judicial review”; money left in 2028 would go to a federal account “designated by the President”. The agreement defined “Lawfare” and “Weaponization” as the use of government power “by Democrat elected officials, political and career federal employees, contractors, and agents” against people for political reasons, and Blanche would not rule out payments to people who assaulted police on January 6. Thirty-five former federal judges and two senators told courts that the Judgment Fund can pay only genuine, final settlements and that the plan bypassed Congress’s power over spending.

Their response: The department said the fund had “no partisan requirements” and “legal precedent” in the Obama-era Keepseagle settlement, which put $680 million from the Judgment Fund into a claims process. Blanche told senators the fund was “unusual” and: “It’s not limited to Republicans. It’s not limited to Democrats. It’s not limited to January 6th defendants. It’s limited only by the term weaponization.” A department fact sheet said the Trumps “cannot receive any money from the Fund, either.” Judge Williams replied that Keepseagle followed a decade of contested litigation and a fairness hearing, and that the $1.776 billion figure “speaks of a ‘branding’ effort rather than a deliberate and thoughtful calculation of damages.”

Sources: Settlement Agreement, Trump v. IRS, posted by the Justice Department (May 18, 2026) · Order of the Acting Attorney General funding the Anti-Weaponization Fund (May 18, 2026) · Justice Department press release 26-512 (May 18, 2026) · Motion of Thirty-Five Former Federal Judges, Trump v. IRS, Doc. 63 (May 27, 2026) · AP (May 19, 2026)

Republicans joined Democrats against the fund, then voted down every attempt to ban it by law

Senate Majority Leader John Thune said he was “not a big fan” of the fund and Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy called it a “slush fund”, saying “You can’t just make up things”; Cassidy and Democrat Cory Booker jointly asked a federal court to block it as an “unconstitutional transfer of taxpayer dollars”. Senate Republicans held up a $70 billion immigration enforcement bill for two weeks over it, but in the June 4 to 5 votes they defeated every amendment to end or limit the fund, including one barring payments to people convicted of assaulting officers on January 6, which eight Republicans supported. On June 16 Republican Sen. Bill Hagerty blocked a Democratic bill to ban the fund and void the tax release. Retiring Republican senators John Cornyn and Thom Tillis then withheld their votes on Blanche’s confirmation as attorney general until he rescinded the fund in writing on August 2, 2026.

Their response: Hagerty, objecting to the ban: “The president made clear that he’d not seek any compensation from the Anti-Weaponization Fund ... Why is that not enough for my colleagues from across the aisle?” Thune called it “a settled issue” after Blanche’s testimony. Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen called the fund a “pure theft of public funds”; Sen. Adam Schiff said the August deal “doesn’t prevent payouts to violent insurrectionists in the future” and “leaves in place a tax-immunity deal”. Trump said of January 6 defendants on August 2: “This would be a reimbursement for the pain that they suffered.”

Sources: AP (May 19, 2026) · NBC News (June 5, 2026) · Amicus motion of Sens. Cory Booker and Bill Cassidy, Floyd v. Department of Justice, Doc. 39 (June 3, 2026) · HuffPost (June 16, 2026) · AP (Aug. 3, 2026)

A Virginia judge froze the fund; the department refused to swear it was dead, then rescinded it

$0 paid before the fund was rescinded

In a suit by a fired January 6 prosecutor, a professor, the city of New Haven and advocacy groups, Judge Leonie Brinkema froze the fund on May 29, 2026 and on June 12 entered a preliminary injunction barring officials from creating it, moving money into it, paying claims or “reconstituting the Anti-Weaponization Fund under a different name”. Blanche told a House panel on June 2, “We are not moving forward with the fund, period”, but said “I’m not committing to putting anything in writing”; when Brinkema offered to end the case if Blanche, Woodward and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent swore to that under penalty of perjury, the department refused, citing “serious separation of powers concerns”. Blanche formally rescinded his order on August 2, stating “No Members were appointed; no funds were transferred; no process for receiving claims was established; no claims were paid.” The case was still open in late September 2026, with the government’s motion to dismiss under advisement.

Their response: A Justice Department spokesperson said on May 29: “The Department remains extremely confident in the legality of the Anti-Weaponization Fund which is supported by ample precedent, including Obama-era settlements. We will not allow the policy preferences of judges to interfere with our efforts to provide restitution to victims of lawfare.” The rescission order called the lawsuits “frivolous”. Trump said in an NBC interview in June, “If it was up to me, I’d pay them the kind of money that they deserve”, and told CNN he did not know whether the fund was dead: “As far as I’m concerned, it was a beautiful thing.” A separate judge in Washington denied a watchdog group’s request to block the fund on June 10, accepting the department’s word that it was not going forward.

Sources: Preliminary injunction order, Floyd v. Department of Justice, E.D. Va. No. 26-cv-1399, Doc. 85 (June 12, 2026) · Order, Floyd v. Department of Justice, Doc. 96 (June 24, 2026) · Rescission order of Aug. 2, 2026, filed as Exhibit E in Floyd v. Department of Justice · NBC News (May 29, 2026) · ABC News (June 12, 2026)

The judge’s findings in full: no real dispute, bad faith, a bar referral, and copies to two bar authorities

In her 56-page order of July 13, 2026, Judge Williams found that Trump “improperly employed this lawsuit to justify a particular award in this matter”, namely “access to taxpayer funds and exemption from audits and other investigations”, and that “the Court expressly finds that Plaintiffs acted in bad faith.” She wrote: “It is risible to suggest that there was ever adverseness between the Parties”; “the Lead Plaintiff and the Government are one, a fully realized unitary interest”; and “there was never a case or controversy; and there was never a question as to who would prevail.” She referred Trump’s lawyer Alejandro Brito to the Florida Bar, barred Daniel Epstein from special admission to her court for a year, forbade both sides from citing the deal as a “settlement” of the case in any official proceeding, and sent her order to the New York and District of Columbia bar authorities for Blanche and Woodward, noting that ethics complaints against both were already pending. The 35 former judges whose motion prompted the ruling asked for $1 per law firm in fees, plus about $4,600 in costs.

Their response: A spokesman for Trump’s legal team: “The IRS wrongly allowed a rogue, politically-motivated employee to leak private and confidential information about President Trump, his family, and the Trump Organization to the New York Times, ProPublica and other left-wing news outlets, which was then illegally released to millions of people. President Trump continues to hold those who wrong America and Americans accountable.” Trump’s appeal brief calls the order an “extraordinary abuse of its sanctions power” issued “without the legally required notice, evidence, or individualized findings”, and says the court “misquoted the Supreme Court” and misattributed sources. The judge did not rule that the deal itself is void: she wrote that whether it “is valid and enforceable or is a depredation of the Judgment Fund and an illegal conferral of immunity is not before this Court.”

Sources: Order, Trump v. IRS, S.D. Fla. No. 26-cv-20609, Doc. 106 (July 13, 2026) · CBS News (July 13, 2026) · Motion for attorney fees by Thirty-Five Former Federal Judges, Doc. 112 (July 27, 2026) · Appendix listing the 35 former judges, Doc. 64 (May 28, 2026)

On appeal, the government joined Trump against the ruling; two courts refused to pause it

Trump, his sons, his company and their two sanctioned lawyers appealed to the Eleventh Circuit on July 31, 2026 (No. 26-12692, captioned Donald Trump v. Thirty-Five Former Federal Judges). The government, nominally his opponent, sided with him: on August 12 the Justice Department told the appeals court the ruling “should be stayed immediately” and asked that the case be taken away from Judge Williams, and on September 11 the IRS and Treasury filed their own appeal, their first filing in the trial court, signed by Acting Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter and stating that they “appear solely for the purpose of noticing their appeal”. Judge Williams denied a stay on September 14, and on September 29 an appeals panel (Judges Jordan, Rosenbaum and Newsom) also refused, finding the appellants “have not made a strong showing that the district court committed clear error in its collusion and bad faith findings” and noting they “did not submit or offer any evidence to explain their litigation conduct”. Trump’s opening brief was filed September 28; as of October 5, 2026 the docket showed no argument date, and as of the September 29 order the former judges’ requests to reopen the case and for fees were still undecided.

Their response: Trump’s brief argues: “President Trump sued in his personal capacity, alongside his sons and The Trump Organization, to vindicate their own statutory rights after the theft and disclosure of their tax information. The Government represented the United States’ separate interests.” It says the court wrongly held “that a sitting President cannot ever sue the Government in his personal capacity”. The Justice Department’s filing argued under the heading “The Department of Justice Routinely Settles Cases Even Before Litigation Commences” and said the ruling’s timing, two days before Blanche’s confirmation hearing, gave “the strong appearance that the rushed issuance was done for an improper political motivation”. The appeals panel cautioned that its stay ruling “does not of course bind the merits panel”, and it agreed with Trump on one point: the ban on citing the deal as a settlement is probably appealable now.

Sources: Order denying stay, Eleventh Circuit No. 26-12692, Doc. 68 (Sept. 29, 2026) · Defendants’ Notice of Appeal, Trump v. IRS, Doc. 129 (Sept. 11, 2026) · Defendants’ response to the stay motion, Eleventh Circuit No. 26-12692, Doc. 10 (Aug. 12, 2026) · Order denying stay, Trump v. IRS, Doc. 130 (Sept. 14, 2026) · Appellants’ opening brief, Eleventh Circuit No. 26-12692, Doc. 67 (Sept. 28, 2026)

He asked his own Justice Department for $230 million

$230M sought; $0 paid

The New York Times reported that Trump filed claims seeking about $230M from the government over past investigations of him, claims that officials who had been his personal defense lawyers could approve. In the May 18, 2026 settlement of his separate lawsuit against the IRS, he agreed to withdraw the two claims by June 15, 2026, and the agreement gave him no money.

Their response: Trump: “I’m not looking for money. I’d give it to charity.”

Sources: CBS News · Senate Judiciary Democrats (partisan) · Settlement Agreement, Trump v. IRS, posted by the Justice Department (May 18, 2026)

Government agreed to pay nearly $5 million to the family of Jan. 6 rioter Ashli Babbitt

$4.975M settlement (reported)

The Justice Department disclosed in court on May 2, 2025 that it had agreed in principle to settle the $30 million wrongful-death suit brought by the family of Ashli Babbitt, who was shot by a Capitol Police officer during the Jan. 6, 2021 riot. The Washington Post then reported the settlement at $4.975 million, with about a third going to lawyers.

Sources: ABC News: DOJ reaches agreement in principle with Babbitt family · Washington Post: U.S. to pay nearly $5 million (not opened, paywalled)

Justice Department agreed to pay Michael Flynn $1.25 million to settle his suit over his own prosecution

$1.25M settlement

The government agreed in March 2026 to pay former national security adviser Michael Flynn $1.25 million to settle a 2023 suit claiming he was maliciously prosecuted; he had sought $50 million and had twice pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI before Trump pardoned him in 2020. Lawfare obtained the signed agreement through a FOIA lawsuit. Politico reported a separate $1.25 million settlement with former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page in April 2026.

Their response: The Justice Department described the Flynn settlement as a step toward redressing what it called an injustice in the Russia investigation and said such weaponization must not happen again (AP via HuffPost).

Sources: Lawfare: U.S. agrees to $1.25 million settlement in Flynn suit · HuffPost / AP: Justice Department settles Flynn lawsuit (March 25, 2026) · Politico: Carter Page settlement (not opened, blocked)

Justice Department agreed to pay Carter Page $1.25 million after he lost in two courts

$1.25M (Politico; not stated in the court filing)

Carter Page, a 2016 Trump campaign adviser, sued in 2020 over the FBI’s secret surveillance of him; a district judge dismissed the case in 2022 and the D.C. Circuit affirmed in May 2025, holding his claims were filed too late. While his Supreme Court petition was pending, Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the justices the government had agreed on April 21, 2026 to settle Page’s claims against the United States; Politico, citing the filing and a person familiar with the deal, put the payment at $1.25 million. The Supreme Court denied the rest of the petition, against former officials sued personally, on June 15, 2026. The Justice Department’s inspector general had found 17 significant errors or omissions in the warrant applications, but no evidence they came from political bias.

Their response: Politico reported: “A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment.” Page and one of his lawyers did not immediately respond to Politico. The Solicitor General’s brief did not defend the lower-court win; it said “This settlement therefore moots petitioner’s PATRIOT Act claim against the United States.” Page’s lawyer told the court “All parties will bear their own costs, expenses, and fees.”

Sources: Brief for the United States, Page v. Comey, No. 25-705, U.S. Supreme Court (Apr. 22, 2026) · U.S. Supreme Court docket, No. 25-705 (cert. denied June 15, 2026) · Politico (Apr. 22, 2026) · Petitioner’s letter on partial settlement, No. 25-705 (May 7, 2026)

Anti-abortion activist Mark Houck got a reported $1 million-plus after a judge threw out his suit

$1M+ per his backers; exact sum undisclosed

Mark Houck, acquitted by a jury in 2023 of federal clinic-access charges, sued the government over his arrest and prosecution. On March 6, 2025, U.S. District Judge Paul Diamond dismissed the suit with prejudice, writing that the family’s claims “are not plausible.” On appeal the Justice Department did not defend that ruling: in June 2025, before any briefs were filed, it joined Houck in asking the Third Circuit to pause the case so they could explore a settlement, a settlement stipulation was signed in December 2025, and the appeal was withdrawn in February 2026. Houck’s backers announced in April 2026 that he was awarded more than $1 million; the exact sum has not been published.

Their response: Houck lawyer Steve Crampton of the Thomas More Society told Fox News Digital: “We are very pleased with a Department of Justice that seems to be genuinely interested in doing justice.” Shawn Carney of 40 Days for Life said “we got so much persecution from the DOJ under Biden, and President Trump has corrected that.” No Justice Department statement on the payment was found.

Sources: Memorandum opinion, Houck v. United States, E.D. Pa. No. 24-2151 (Mar. 6, 2025) · Joint motion to stay briefing, Houck v. USA, 3d Cir. No. 25-1433 (June 18, 2025) · Amended joint status report, 3d Cir. No. 25-1433 (Jan. 7, 2026) · Fox News (Apr. 15, 2026) · EWTN News via National Catholic Register (Apr. 14, 2026)

Justice Department backed refunding restitution and court fees to pardoned Jan. 6 rioters

$3,410 in refunds ordered in two cases

After Trump’s pardons, the Justice Department had the convictions of Jan. 6 defendants with pending appeals vacated, then told judges those defendants should get back the restitution and court assessments they had paid. Several judges refused in 2025, but Judge John Bates on Aug. 27, 2025 entered a $2,270 judgment for Yvonne St Cyr, payable from the Treasury, saying he did so “with some reluctance,” and Chief Judge James Boasberg on Dec. 3, 2025 reversed his own earlier denial and ordered $570 returned to each of two defendants. Bates put his order on hold pending appeals at the D.C. Circuit. On April 28, 2026, Judge Beryl Howell refused a $1,569.93 refund to a Proud Boys member even though prosecutors did not oppose it.

Their response: The U.S. Attorney’s office under Jeanine Pirro wrote: “The government agrees that St Cyr is entitled to the return of those funds.” It relied on a 2017 Supreme Court ruling that money taken under a conviction later invalidated must be returned. Judge Bates wrote: “Sometimes a judge is called upon to do what the law requires, even if it may seem at odds with what justice or one’s initial instincts might warrant.”

Sources: Memorandum opinion, United States v. St Cyr, D.D.C. No. 22-cr-185 (Aug. 27, 2025) · Judgment order, United States v. St Cyr (Aug. 27, 2025) · Government’s response to motion for return of monetary penalties, United States v. St Cyr (Aug. 6, 2025) · Memorandum opinion, United States v. Ballenger, D.D.C. No. 21-cr-719 (Dec. 3, 2025) · Memorandum opinion, United States v. Ochs, D.D.C. No. 21-cr-73 (Apr. 28, 2026)

With the $1.8 billion fund shelved, Jan. 6 defendants press damage claims and Trump says pay them

Pardoned Jan. 6 defendants have filed hundreds of damage claims against the government: attorney Mark McCloskey submitted about 400 in December 2025, and attorney Peter Ticktin told ABC News in June 2026 he had filed about 200, planned 200 more, and had sued for nine clients seeking at least $1 million each. No payment on any of these has been reported: both lawyers said the department had shown little interest, and on Aug. 3, 2026 it asked a Florida judge to dismiss with prejudice a proposed class action by people in the Jan. 6 crowd. After acting Attorney General Todd Blanche dropped the $1.776 billion fund on June 2, 2026, Trump said the people he pardoned “should be reimbursed,” and Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward replied “We’re on it” to a senator’s suggestion to pay through tort claims, then deleted the post. Lawfare notes that such settlements are generally paid from the Treasury’s Judgment Fund, with almost no role for courts or Congress.

Their response: Trump, on a podcast: “I’m very proud to have given them pardons. And I think they should be reimbursed for a crooked government.” ABC News said a Justice Department spokesperson did not respond about Woodward’s deleted post. House Speaker Mike Johnson, asked about paying the rioters: “Doesn’t sound like that’s appropriate to me, but I have to look into it, I don’t know.” Enrique Tarrio, in a text to PBS quoted by Lawfare: “They can just settle the claims and lawsuits. That has no judicial review or congressional oversight.”

Sources: ABC News (June 3, 2026) · ABC News, on the deleted post (June 3, 2026) · HuffPost (Jan. 8, 2026) · United States’ motion to dismiss, Sullivan v. United States, M.D. Fla. No. 5:26-cv-220 (Aug. 3, 2026) · Lawfare (June 5, 2026)

Proud Boys leaders convicted over Jan. 6 demand $100 million; the Justice Department is fighting them

$100M sought; $0 paid

Enrique Tarrio, Joseph Biggs, Zachary Rehl, Ethan Nordean and Dominic Pezzola sued the government in Orlando federal court on June 6, 2025, seeking $100 million for what they call a malicious prosecution. Nothing has been paid: the Justice Department moved to dismiss in August 2025 and again on Aug. 20, 2026, and the judge has twice sent the complaint back for pleading defects. Separately, after the department abandoned the criminal case, a judge on July 10, 2026 dismissed the indictments of the four men whose sentences Trump had commuted. A Washington church holding a judgment of more than $2.8 million against Tarrio and Nordean has asked to intervene so that any payout goes toward that debt.

Their response: The Justice Department’s Aug. 20, 2026 motion says the suit should be dismissed in part because “the malicious prosecution claims lack merit.” A lawyer for the plaintiffs told CBS News: “We are confident that the Court will see that the Federal government’s outrageous treatment of my clients justifies allowing the suit to continue.” Pardoned Jan. 6 defendant Isaac Thomas told supporters “Pam Bondi’s DOJ seems to be advocating for the same things that the Biden regime was advocating for.”

Sources: United States’ motion to dismiss, Tarrio v. United States, M.D. Fla. No. 6:25-cv-998 (Aug. 20, 2026) · Order dismissing second amended complaint with leave to amend (July 17, 2026) · Metropolitan AME Church motion to intervene (May 26, 2026) · CBS News (Sept. 2, 2025) · Associated Press (July 11, 2026)

Justice Department asked courts to put the United States in Trump’s place in E. Jean Carroll’s suit

$83.3M verdict the move would erase

On April 11, 2025 the Justice Department certified that Trump was acting as president when he denied Carroll’s accusation in 2019, and joined his private lawyers in asking the Second Circuit to substitute the United States as defendant under the Westfall Act, which CNN reported would almost certainly end her defamation case. The court refused on June 18, 2025, later explaining that the motion was barred by the statute, waived and inequitable, and it denied rehearing on April 29, 2026 over a three-judge dissent. The department filed its own Supreme Court petition (No. 26-142) on July 28, 2026 alongside Trump’s; Carroll’s response is due Oct. 30, 2026.

Their response: The department’s certification, signed by Torts Branch director Kirsten Wilkinson, said: “I find that Donald J. Trump was acting within the scope of his office or employment at the time of the incidents out of which the plaintiff’s claims arose.” Trump’s lawyers told the Supreme Court: “This is the first case in our nation’s history in which a court has imposed damages liability on a president for his conduct in office.” Cutting the other way: the department first made the same certification under Attorney General Barr in 2020 and kept defending it under Biden until July 2023, and three Second Circuit judges wrote that the panel was wrong.

Sources: Second Circuit opinion, Carroll v. Trump (Aug. 8, 2025) · Supreme Court docket No. 26-142, United States v. Carroll · Second Circuit dissent from denial of rehearing (April 29, 2026) · CBS News (April 17, 2025) · CNN (July 28, 2026)

Justice Department filed a brief backing Trump’s bid to move his hush-money conviction to federal court

On May 27, 2025 the Justice Department filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Second Circuit supporting Trump, the defendant, against New York prosecutors, arguing that his conviction on 34 felony counts was properly removed to federal court and that the ruling against him “should be reversed.” On Nov. 6, 2025 the appeals court vacated that ruling and sent it back for reconsideration without saying how it should come out; on Aug. 28, 2026 Judge Alvin Hellerstein refused for the third time, finding Trump’s reasons “neither new nor legally sufficient.” Trump’s team says he will appeal, and his separate state-court appeal is pending.

Their response: The department’s brief said it represents federal officers who face legal risk under state law and that “the United States has a strong and direct interest in the issues presented in this appeal.” A statement for Trump’s legal team said: “President Trump will be filing a powerful appeal, and will continue defeating Democrat weaponization at every turn.” Cutting the other way: a panel of three judges named by Democratic presidents agreed the lower court had not adequately considered the issues and ordered a second look.

Sources: Brief for the United States as amicus curiae, No. 24-2299 (May 27, 2025) · Second Circuit opinion, New York v. Trump (Nov. 6, 2025) · AP (June 11, 2025) · AP via NBC New York (Aug. 28, 2026)

Reports: Justice Department opened a criminal inquiry tied to E. Jean Carroll’s suits against Trump

CNN (May 27, 2026) and NBC News (May 28), citing unnamed sources, reported that the Justice Department opened a criminal investigation involving the lawsuits in which juries found Trump liable to Carroll. It is run from the U.S. attorney’s office in Chicago and focuses on a trust founded by Democratic donor Reid Hoffman, whose nonprofit paid some of her legal costs, and on whether Carroll lied in a 2022 deposition when she said no one else was paying her fees. The Chicago U.S. attorney denies that his office opened an investigation into Carroll; no charges had been reported as of June 6, 2026.

Their response: U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros said his office “has never opened” a criminal investigation into Carroll and that “Any claim to the contrary is categorically false.” The White House referred questions to the Justice Department. Hoffman called the allegations “absurdly false.” Facts that cut the other way: acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, formerly Trump’s lawyer in the Carroll appeals, was reported to be recused, and Carroll did give an answer in 2022 that her own lawyers corrected in 2023. Against that, the Second Circuit wrote in 2024 that she “plausibly represented that she had forgotten about the limited outside funding.”

Sources: CNN (May 27, 2026, updated May 28) · NBC News (May 28, 2026) · CNN (May 29, 2026) · CNN (June 6, 2026)

Blanche was told in 2025 to recuse from Trump matters; as attorney general he faces bar complaints

Todd Blanche, who represented Trump in three of his criminal cases, was confirmed attorney general 50 to 49 on Aug. 8, 2026 (Republicans Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski voted no) and sworn in on Aug. 10, after running the department as acting attorney general since April. CNN reported on May 14, 2026 that less than two weeks after he became deputy attorney general in March 2025, the department’s top ethics lawyer, Joseph Tirrell, told him he had to recuse from cases involving Trump in his personal capacity; Tirrell was fired that July, and a spokesperson told CNN in May 2026 that Blanche had not recused from the investigation of former CIA director John Brennan. On June 22, 2026, 101 former judges and two legal groups filed a 73-page ethics complaint against him with New York’s Attorney Grievance Committee, and on July 13 Judge Kathleen Williams sent her ruling on Trump’s IRS lawsuit to the New York and D.C. bar authorities. The complaints are accusations: no disciplinary finding against Blanche has been reported.

Their response: A Justice Department spokeswoman told CNN: “He is recused from many cases before DOJ. In any cases that are still ongoing where he previously represented someone, he is recused.” After publication the department added: “To the extent DOJ is investigating something related to the President for which Todd was previously representing him, then hypothetically yes, he would recuse.” CNN also reported that Blanche had delegated oversight of the wider “conspiracy” investigation to aides.

Sources: U.S. Senate roll call vote 230, 119th Congress, 2nd session (Aug. 8, 2026) · Justice Department, Meet the Attorney General · CNN (May 14, 2026) · Ethics complaint by 101 former judges, Democracy Defenders Fund and Lawyers Defending American Democracy (June 22, 2026) · CBS News (July 13, 2026)

More Trump-orbit lawyers got top posts: solicitor general, No. 3 at Justice, White House counsel

D. John Sauer, the lawyer Trump hired to argue his presidential immunity case at the Supreme Court in 2024, became the 49th solicitor general on April 4, 2025 and now argues the administration’s cases there. Stanley Woodward, who was not Trump’s own lawyer but represented Trump aide Walt Nauta in the Mar-a-Lago documents investigation and Jan. 6 defendants including Kelly Meggs and Ryan Samsel, was confirmed in October 2025 as associate attorney general, the department’s third-ranking official. On Aug. 9, 2026 Trump announced that Will Scharf, who joined his legal team in October 2023 and worked on the election interference case, would become White House counsel on Sept. 1; Scharf had been staff secretary and, as Trump’s appointed chair of the National Capital Planning Commission, helped secure approval of the White House ballroom. The Associated Press described Scharf as “among several of Trump’s lawyers who have been rewarded with spots in his second administration”; appointing trusted lawyers is legal and all the Justice Department posts were Senate-confirmed.

Their response: Trump wrote on Truth Social of Scharf: “Will is Tough, Strong, and Smart! He also loves our Country, and respects the Law.” Trump outside legal adviser Mike Davis told CNN: “John Sauer has been so effective for President Trump, both as his defense attorney and as a solicitor general.” No response addressed specifically to conflict-of-interest criticism of Sauer, Woodward or Scharf was found.

Sources: Justice Department, Solicitor General D. John Sauer · Justice Department, Meet the Associate Attorney General · AP via PBS News (Aug. 10, 2026) · CNN (March 31, 2026) · Order, Trump v. IRS, S.D. Fla. No. 26-cv-20609, Doc. 106 (July 13, 2026)

Emil Bove, Trump’s defense lawyer, confirmed 50-49 as appeals judge despite a whistleblower’s account

Emil Bove, who sat beside Todd Blanche at Trump’s New York hush money trial and worked on both federal cases, ran the Justice Department as interim deputy attorney general from Trump’s first day, then served as principal associate deputy attorney general. In a 27-page whistleblower letter sent to the Senate on June 24, 2025, fired department lawyer Erez Reuveni said that at a March 2025 meeting on Alien Enemies Act deportations Bove said the department “would need to consider telling the courts ‘fuck you’” if ordered to stop them; that account is Reuveni’s and Bove denies it. The Senate confirmed Bove to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals 50 to 49 on July 29, 2025, with Republicans Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski voting no, making him the first of Trump’s personal lawyers placed on the federal bench. On Aug. 10, 2026 Judge Bove administered the oath of office to Attorney General Blanche at the White House.

Their response: Bove told the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 25, 2025: “I have never advised a Department of Justice attorney to violate a court order.” He also said: “I am not anybody’s henchman.” Committee chairman Chuck Grassley said “the political timing of this public attack could not be more obvious”, and Attorney General Bondi called the whistleblower’s timing “suspect”. White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said: “Bove is unquestionably qualified for the role”.

Sources: U.S. Senate roll call vote 448, 119th Congress, 1st session (July 29, 2025) · Roll Call (June 24, 2025) · AP via PBS News (June 25, 2025) · CNN (June 25, 2025) · AP via PBS News (Aug. 10, 2026)

Trump: “I’m actually the chief law enforcement officer” and “I could be the one starting it”

Speaking to staff at the Justice Department on March 14, 2025, Trump said: “So now, as the chief law enforcement officer in our country, I will insist upon and demand full and complete accountability for the wrongs and abuses that have occurred.” On Aug. 22, 2025, asked about the FBI search of John Bolton’s home, he said: “I could know about it. I could be the one starting it. I’m actually the chief law enforcement officer, but I feel that it’s better this way.” On Sept. 25, 2025, asked about an imminent indictment of James Comey, he said: “I think I’d be allowed to get involved if I want, but I don’t really choose to do so.” On Nov. 14, 2025, asked aboard Air Force One whether a president should be able to order investigations, he said “I am considered the chief law enforcement agent in the country” and “I’m allowed to do it. I don’t wanna do it. I’m not doing it.” In each of the three 2025 answers to reporters he also said he was staying out of the case in question; his Sept. 20, 2025 post telling Bondi to prosecute Comey, Schiff and James is covered in a separate entry.

Their response: Asked in April 2026 about Trump’s public message urging Bondi to charge his opponents, then-Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told NBC News: “That type of communication from President Trump should make every American happy”, adding: “It means that there’s an executive, a chief executive, that is making sure every one of his Cabinet members are working as hard as they should.” NBC reported that he said directing the Justice Department is “what being the commander in chief is about.”

Sources: Roll Call Factba.se transcript, speech at the Justice Department (March 14, 2025) · Roll Call Factba.se transcript, press gaggle at The People’s House (Aug. 22, 2025) · Roll Call Factba.se transcript, Oval Office remarks with Turkey’s president (Sept. 25, 2025) · Roll Call Factba.se transcript, press gaggle on Air Force One (Nov. 14, 2025) · NBC News (April 14, 2026)

“Grand conspiracy” grand jury in Judge Cannon’s courthouse: three prosecutors out, no charges

The Justice Department is investigating former officials who investigated Trump through a federal grand jury in Fort Pierce, Florida, the courthouse of Trump-appointed Judge Aileen Cannon, under Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney Jason Reding Quinones. In April 2026 Maria Medetis Long, the career prosecutor leading the John Brennan inquiry, was removed after resisting pressure to charge quickly, CNN reported; her replacement, Trump ally Joe diGenova, signed a subpoena for Brennan to testify on Oct. 15 and resigned the next day, Sept. 10, 2026, and a third prosecutor, Kurt Olsen, left the case that month. As of Sept. 30, 2026 the investigation had produced no charges.

Their response: On Medetis Long’s removal the Justice Department said it is routine to move attorneys between cases “so offices can most effectively allocate resources.” DiGenova said: “It was an honor and a privilege to serve the president and the department.” Attorney General Todd Blanche said “Kurt Olsen has not resigned”; an official later said Olsen stays on staff but off the case. The department declined to comment on diGenova’s exit, and one of its lawyers told a judge that Brennan, if charged, could raise his objections then. Brennan says he has done nothing wrong and sued in July 2026 to make the administration preserve its records.

Sources: NBC News (Sept. 10, 2026) · NBC News (Sept. 14, 2026) · CNN (April 17, 2026) · CBS News (Sept. 30, 2026) · CNN (July 1, 2026)

Trump fired Bondi in a social media post that gave no reason; sources cited failed cases against his foes

Trump announced Pam Bondi’s removal on Truth Social on April 2, 2026, after 14 months, giving no reason and writing that she “will be transitioning to a much needed and important new job in the private sector”; CNN reported that one source said she had no other job lined up and that Trump had told her in a “tough” conversation the day before that she would be replaced. Sources told CNN he was frustrated by her handling of the Epstein files and that she had not investigated or prosecuted enough of his political opponents; on April 1 she had summoned the Miami prosecutor overseeing the John Brennan investigation to Washington because she believed it was being slow-walked. She was the second Cabinet member removed in about a month, after Kristi Noem; Lee Zeldin was reported under consideration, but Trump said on June 3 that he would nominate her deputy and his former defense lawyer, Todd Blanche. In testimony released on June 4, 2026 Bondi told the House Oversight Committee that Blanche “was in charge of the process and the entire release of the Epstein files”.

Their response: Trump’s post said: “Pam Bondi is a Great American Patriot and a loyal friend, who faithfully served as my Attorney General over the past year.” Bondi wrote that leading the department “has been the honor of a lifetime”. Blanche said he had “never” heard the president say “that anything that happened to her had anything to do with the Epstein files”. Bondi called the claim that she was blaming Blanche “NOT TRUE” and said she “praised Acting AG Blanche’s management of this Herculean task”.

Sources: CNN (April 2, 2026) · NPR (April 2, 2026) · The Guardian (April 3, 2026) · AP via PBS News (June 4, 2026) · The Guardian (June 4, 2026)

“Weaponization” chief Ed Martin vowed to name and shame the uncharged; sidelined in 2026, then left

Ed Martin, Trump’s interim U.S. attorney in Washington and then pardon attorney and director of the Justice Department’s Weaponization Working Group, said on May 13, 2025 that people the department cannot charge would be named and shamed, which NBC called a major departure from department protocols. CNN reported in February 2026 that he was removed as head of the group and that a department review found he improperly shared grand jury material from the mortgage inquiry into Sen. Adam Schiff; he has not been charged. In March 2026 Washington’s lawyer discipline office filed ethics charges over his 2025 letter to Georgetown Law, and on Aug. 21, 2026 Trump announced Martin was leaving government.

Their response: Martin said in 2025: “And if they can be charged, we’ll charge them. But if they can’t be charged, we will name them.” Blanche told CNN: “there are no misconduct investigations into Ed Martin. Ed is doing a great job as Pardon Attorney.” A person close to Martin said the working group “followed DOJ standards and procedures at all times.” Blanche called the ethics complaint the product of “a blatantly Democrat-run political organization.” Trump wrote that Martin had “done an incredible job.”

Sources: NBC News (May 13, 2025) · CNN (Feb. 4, 2026) · AP (March 10, 2026) · NBC News (Aug. 21, 2026)