PUBLISHED Sep 5, 2026, 6:53 AM ET
Authored by Levi C. Webb
A federal magistrate judge in Alexandria, Virginia, ordered the Justice Department to identify who designed the structure of its abandoned Anti-Weaponization Fund.
The payout plan has been rescinded, but litigation continues as plaintiffs seek evidence about its origins and challenge provisions connected to President Donald Trump's settlement.
Magistrate Judge Ivan Davis issued the discovery ruling Friday, September 4, in federal court in Alexandria, according to Bloomberg Law. The dispute concerns the proposed $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund and the agreement that accompanied President Donald Trump's tax-records lawsuit. The ruling advances an evidence dispute in Floyd v. Department of Justice, a case in the Eastern District of Virginia, without resolving the underlying challenge.
Bloomberg Law reported that Davis narrowed the plaintiffs' request, which had sought identities connected to the conception of both the fund and the broader settlement. He directed the government to identify those responsible for designing the fund's structure. The Washington Post reported that DOJ is appealing and that discovery disclosures remain confidential before trial.
The Justice Department announced the fund in May as part of an agreement involving Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump and the Trump Organization. Those plaintiffs had sued the Treasury Department and IRS in the Southern District of Florida after their tax returns were leaked. DOJ said the settlement offered them an apology without damages and proposed financing the compensation program through the federal Judgment Fund, which pays government settlements and judgments.
The department's position changed formally on August 2, when Todd Blanche signed an order rescinding the May directive establishing the program. That order states that no members had been appointed, no money transferred, no claims process established and no claims paid. An accompanying DOJ explanation also said a separate release of claims applied retroactively and, in the department's interpretation, affected only the named parties to the referenced lawsuit.
The discovery battle was already underway before Friday's hearing. Thomson Reuters reported September 1 that Davis had ordered initial disclosures for claims outside review of the administrative record, with a September 4 deadline. DOJ argued that the case qualified for an exemption from those disclosures and said it had produced more than 700 pages of administrative material. Plaintiffs countered that their constitutional claims required evidence beyond that record, while the government also sought dismissal of the case.
The plaintiffs expanded their challenge in August to address the related release of tax claims. Democracy Forward, which represents them, said the amended complaint alleges that the arrangement unlawfully protects Trump, family members and businesses from tax scrutiny and puts IRS employees in conflict with their duties. The group identified the National Treasury Employees Union among the plaintiffs, alongside former prosecutor Andrew Floyd, the City of New Haven, the National Abortion Federation and Common Cause. Those allegations remain the plaintiffs' position; DOJ's published explanation describes a narrower scope for the release.
The case now concerns both the history of a rescinded compensation plan and the reach of provisions associated with the original settlement. Evidence about how the arrangement was developed may inform those disputes, but Friday's disclosure ruling does not itself authorize payments or settle the legality of the challenged provisions.
• • • • •
Reporting and writing by Levi C. Webb. AI tools were used selectively to assist with research and editorial support.
© 2026 Fat Wagner LLC. All rights reserved.