The “So-Called Settlement” May Be Even Worse
by Mark M. Bello
Donald Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS was always political malarkey. But the deeper Americans look into what happened afterward, the more troubling the story becomes. Donald Trump is not at all shy about telling the American taxpayer that he intends to rip them off.
He framed this litigation by portraying himself as an aggrieved taxpayer suing the government over an improper disclosure of tax information. If that were true, the legal issues would be relatively straightforward.
Instead, what has emerged is far more dangerous:
- A constitutionally suspect lawsuit against agencies controlled by the president himself.
- A legally dubious attempt to hold the IRS responsible for the criminal conduct of a contractor.
- A voluntary dismissal without a true judicial settlement.
- A proposed multi-billion-dollar “anti-weaponization” compensation fund, created outside the ordinary congressional appropriations process.
- And a politically controlled mechanism that may compensate Trump loyalists, including potentially individuals convicted of assaulting police officers on January 6.
This is not normal litigation. It is frivolous executive self-dealing disguised as a lawsuit.
The Lawsuit Was Legally Weak From the Start
The alleged tax-return leak at the center of Trump’s lawsuit was committed by an IRS contractor, Charles Littlejohn, who acted criminally, was prosecuted by the federal government, pled guilty, and was sentenced to prison.
Legally, that matters. The United States is not automatically liable for every criminal act committed by a contractor or employee — especially when the conduct falls outside the scope of lawful employment.
Indeed, the Federal Tort Claims Act generally excludes liability for independent contractors absent substantial government control over the contractor’s day-to-day conduct.
In other words, Trump’s legal theory was already shaky.
The IRS did not leak Trump’s taxes in the course of business. A rogue contractor committed a crime, was caught, prosecuted, and imprisoned. That distinction is enormous. Yet Trump demanded billions. The size of the demand alone suggests more political theater than serious or appropriate litigation.
Can POTUS SUE HIMSELF? NO!
This is the most constitutionally alarming aspect of the case.
Article III of the Constitution requires a real “case or controversy.” Courts are supposed to resolve genuine disputes between adverse parties — not supervise political choreography.
Here, the plaintiff was the President of the United States.
And the defendants are agencies controlled by the president:
- the IRS,
- Treasury,
- and ultimately the Department of Justice.
That creates an extraordinary constitutional problem. Who is representing the interests of the United States? The same administration controls both sides of the litigation:
No corporate board in America would tolerate a CEO negotiating both sides of a transaction involving billions of dollars. Yet, this lawsuit is the government equivalent of exactly that. The Framers did not create a constitutional system in which a president could sue the government he controls, negotiate with himself, and redirect taxpayer resources through a politically favorable arrangement.
That is not adversarial litigation. That is executive self-dealing.
And this is where the story becomes even more disturbing. According to reports, Trump has voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit. He didn’t “settle” it—HE DISMISSED IT! That distinction matters.
If there is no lawsuit to “settle,” what is the reason for this so-called “anti-weaponization fund”?
Where does the executive branch derive authority to create a massive compensation structure after the underlying litigation itself has effectively disappeared? A legitimate settlement resolves legal claims tied to identifiable liability.
But here:
- There was no trial or judicial finding of government wrongdoing
- There was no determination of liability or damages
- And there was no court-approved settlement of this litigation.
Yet, somehow, as a result of a scheme between the president and his Justice Department, a massive compensation fund, unrelated to the lawsuit, is created. Does that sound kosher to you?
The IRS case increasingly looks less like the legal basis for the fund and more like the political pretext for creating it.
Congress Controls Government Spending — Not the President
The Constitution is crystal clear on this point.
Article I gives Congress — not the president — control over federal spending.
“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”
The reason is obvious: The Framers predicted that someone like Donald Trump might become president. In other words, they feared executive abuse of public funds. They understood that presidents cannot be permitted to direct taxpayer money toward political allies, favored constituencies, or personal grievance campaigns.
But that is precisely what is happening here and why all reporters are calling this a slush fund.
Can POTUS:
- Initiate friendly litigation?
- Dismiss the case?
- And still create a multi-billion-dollar compensation mechanism outside normal appropriations?
NO! If he can, then Congress’s constitutional spending authority becomes little more than a suggestion. That is not a technicality. That is a major separation-of-powers crisis.
This “Weaponization Fund” Raises Disturbing Ethical Questions
But wait! There is even more corruption! Here’s a simple question:
Who stands to benefit from this fund?
According to public reporting, Trump has earmarked these funds for aggrieved loyalists. Administration sources refuse to rule out compensation for January 6 defendants — including individuals convicted of assaulting Capitol Police officers.
Seriously?
With taxpayer dollars?
And the person who pardoned most of the January 6 insurrectionists is overseeing this compensation scheme?
Only in Trumpworld.
This is not merely politically controversial. It raises profound ethical and constitutional concerns about favoritism, abuse of public funds, and the transformation of government power into a political reward system.
Traditional compensation funds are designed around identifiable legal harms and neutral eligibility standards. This one is centered around political grievance. That distinction matters.
A hell of a lot.
Audit Immunity?
There is also a report floating around that this “arrangement” between the DOJ and Trump would shield Trump from future IRS scrutiny.
Permanent audit immunity after he is out of office?
Are you kidding me? What ordinary citizen gets special protection from future IRS enforcement?
What happened to “We are all equal under the law?” or “The law applies equally to everyone?”
Such an arrangement, if the reporting is accurate, would fundamentally undermine those principles.
Presidents are not kings. They are not supposed to be plaintiffs, defendants, negotiators, appropriators, and beneficiaries all at once.
When those lines disappear, the rule of law disappears with them.
Mark M. Bello is an attorney and award-winning author of the Zachary Blake Legal Thriller Series, ripped-from-the-headlines, realistic fiction that speaks truth to power and champions the rights of citizens in our justice system. These novels are dedicated to the social justice movement. They educate, spark discussion, and inspire readers to action. One of these was “Betrayal of Justice, a blistering novel about presidential misconduct and hypocrisy” For more information, please visit www.markmbello.com.