Attorney General Rayfield Condemns Unprecedented Misuse of Legal System for Trump’s “Anti-Weaponization” Fund

Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield and a multistate coalition condemned the purported "settlement" agreement in Trump v. IRS, which granted President Trump and his family immunity from investigations and prosecutions related to past conduct and required the Department of Justice to establish a $1.776 billion "Anti-Weaponization" fund.

AG Rayfield and the multistate coalition filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to carefully scrutinize the parties' conduct and agreement. The coalition argues that the lawsuit and subsequent settlement are nothing more than a collusive fraud engineered to violate the constitutional limits on presidential authority, all at the expense of American taxpayers.

"This so-called 'settlement' is not just self-serving, it's corrupt," said Attorney General Rayfield. "President Trump wants to enrich his political allies and protect his family from being held accountable for their unlawful actions. We will not let that stand. Every American must follow the law - and that includes the President."

Background

In January 2026, President Trump, his family, and his business organization filed suit against the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) over the disclosure of President Trump's tax return information by a government contractor. The District Court expressed skepticism about the lawsuit, but President Trump quickly, voluntarily dismissed his claims and entered into a "settlement" agreement with the Department of Justice instead. The "settlement" granted President Trump and his family immunity from all investigations and prosecutions related to past conduct, and also required the U.S. Department of Justice to establish a $1.776 billion "Anti-Weaponization" fund.

The District Court is now considering reopening Trump v. IRS under a rule that allows a court to set aside a judgment and reopen a case on the basis that there was fraud or deception perpetrated by parties upon the court. In the amicus brief, Attorney General Rayfield and the coalition offer their perspective as the chief law officers of their states, highlighting that the self-dealing and corrupt nature of this settlement agreement goes against the responsibilities of attorneys general and the rule of law.

The coalition emphasizes that this kind of collusion between a President and a Department he oversees undermines the separation of powers, public confidence in the court system, the powers exercised by state attorneys general, and the rule of law.