On Tuesday, July 14th, 2026, District Judge Williams reopened the Trump v. IRS case, which had been ostensibly settled, to investigate serious allegations that former President Donald Trump voluntarily dismissed the litigation to avoid judicial scrutiny. The lawsuit was described as collusive from the start and filed solely to provide a veneer of legality for an unlawful settlement.

Judge Williams' opinion harshly criticizes the Executive Branch's conduct, calling it a damning indictment of lawlessness. The court found that the parties involved shared interests rather than being adversaries, undermining the legitimacy of the lawsuit. The settlement agreement was signed on behalf of the plaintiffs by Daniel Epstein, a former White House Senior Associate Counsel and Special Assistant to President Trump from 2017 to 2020.

Plaintiffs acknowledged that regardless of whether they had filed the action, both the government and plaintiffs had the power to resolve all disputes, indicating the lawsuit was not about vindicating rights but about manipulating the judicial process to achieve benefits unavailable through litigation.

The court inferred that the government failed to defend the lawsuit or respond to jurisdictional inquiries because its position would not withstand judicial scrutiny and would not favor its preferred outcome. The context of the settlement, the relationships of those involved, ethical concerns, and the swift dismissal after jurisdictional questions were raised all support the court's conclusions.

This case involves a disputed plan allegedly orchestrated by Trump and Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche to divert $1.776 billion from U.S. taxpayers to Trump's hardline supporters. Despite Blanche's promise that the Department of Justice would not proceed with establishing the so-called "Slush Fund," the case remains active.

Judge Williams' findings suggest significant ethical and legal issues that could have broader implications, with some observers noting that under ordinary circumstances, such conduct might warrant impeachment proceedings.

Sources