A federal judge has found that a lawsuit brought by President Trump against the IRS sought to “manipulate the judicial process,” resulting in sanctions against attorneys involved.
The controversy centres on an attempted settlement that would have established a staggering $1.8 billion so-called “anti-weaponization” fund, which critics quickly condemned.
Judge Williams found that DOJ attorneys agreed to a settlement involving a substantial sum of money potentially benefitting former clients of the attorneys involved.
The judge also ruled that a tax amnesty order signed by acting Attorney General Todd Blanche alone “directly contravenes” a federal law barring presidents and other executive branch leaders from influencing tax audits.
Williams directed a copy of her order to be sent to the State Bar of New York and to the District of Columbia Bar, targeting Blanche and his colleagues directly.
Blanche and Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward are members of those bars respectively, and both already had disciplinary proceedings running before this referral arrived.
The DOJ had already walked back the proposed slush fund before the ruling, but that retreat did not satisfy Judge Williams or resolve the underlying legal concerns.
Blanche refused to issue any binding agreement that he would not attempt to resuscitate the fund at a later date, a stance that drew further criticism from the court.
The judge also referred Trump lawyer Alejandro Brito to the Florida Bar and denied another Trump lawyer the ability to appear before the Southern District of Florida for a period of one year.
The judicial pressure arrived at a particularly sensitive moment, with Blanche’s Senate confirmation hearings for Attorney General having begun on 15 July 2026.
Bar disciplinary referrals carry serious professional consequences and add a significant layer of scrutiny to Blanche’s confirmation process before the Senate.
The rulings collectively represent one of the more pointed judicial rebukes directed at senior Justice Department leadership in recent memory, raising broader questions about DOJ conduct.