Advertise with Aurax News — Reach a Global Audience Today.
By Aurax Desk | September 6, 2026 | 2 min read
A federal magistrate judge has ordered the Justice Department to identify the people who developed the structure of a now-defunct $1.8 billion fund created by the Trump administration to compensate people who claimed they were victims of government “weaponization.” The ruling is part of a lawsuit challenging the legality of the fund and a related agreement that provided broad protections from tax investigations for President Donald Trump, members of his family and his businesses.
federal lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's proposed $1.8 billion fund is being heard in Alexandria, Virginia.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Ivan D. Davis issued the order Friday in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, directing the Justice Department to disclose the identities of those who conceived the fund's structure to attorneys representing the plaintiffs. The department had resisted the request, arguing that the information was protected by legal privilege or internal deliberations. Davis rejected those arguments and also ordered the government to provide relevant evidence dating from January 2025 through Sept. 4, although the Justice Department is appealing the discovery rulings. The disclosures will remain subject to confidentiality protections unless the case proceeds to trial.
The fund was announced in May as part of a settlement involving a lawsuit Trump and his family filed against the Internal Revenue Service over the disclosure of his tax returns. The Justice Department said the $1.776 billion fund would provide a process for people seeking compensation or other relief over alleged politically motivated government actions. The proposal quickly drew bipartisan criticism, particularly over concerns that people prosecuted in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol could benefit after Trump issued broad pardons and sentence commutations. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche later said the fund would not move forward, but lawsuits challenging the arrangement remain active.
Sources: The New York Times, The Washington Post, Bloomberg Law and the U.S. Department of Justice.