Trump’s deal with the DOJ marks new level of unprecedented corruption | Opinion

President Donald Trump’s deal with the Department of Justice raises corruption to a level never seen before in this county. It can — and must — be stopped.

Under a Constitution committed to checks and balances, no president should have the authority to give almost $1.8 billion of taxpayer money to his cronies and give himself broad immunity from liability for his personal acts. Some have suggested that there is no way to challenge this. But that is wrong: either house of Congress could bring a lawsuit against this and put an end to it.

Blatant self-dealing

What has occurred is stunning. Trump, in his personal capacity, brought a suit against the Internal Revenue Service seeking $10 billion in damages for the wrongful release of his income tax returns by an IRS sub-contractor. The suit was frivolous: the statute of limitation already had expired on this claim, and it is dubious that the U.S. government could be held liable for what occurred.

After he filed the lawsuit, Trump said, “I am supposed to work out a settlement with myself.” That, of course, cannot be right; it is blatant self-dealing. Florida federal Judge Kathleen Williams, who was hearing the case, recognized that this was a collusive lawsuit without the adversariness required in federal court and appointed independent lawyers to brief the issue.

But before Williams could rule, Trump and Interim Attorney General Todd Blanche — Trump’s former personal lawyer — circumvented the court by dismissing the case and entering an astounding settlement. Once the case was dismissed, the court lacked jurisdiction and could do nothing. The purported “settlement” calls for allocating $1.776 billion in Department of Justice funds to pay compensation to those who allegedly suffered unjust persecution under the Obama or Biden Justice Departments.

Payments will be controlled by five “commissioners” appointed by Trump and subject to his ongoing supervision and control. This will almost certainly mean large payments to those prosecuted and convicted by juries for violating the law for their role in the January 6 insurrection. There is nothing to stop Trump’s commission from giving money to anyone it wants, including his cronies, friends and family members.

Additionally, the purported “settlement” permanently exempts Trump, his family and his business empire from IRS audits and regulatory action for his past sins, including the $100 million penalty he was reportedly facing in one of the ongoing IRS audits.

Immune from challenge?

Trump and Blanche obviously think that their raid on taxpayers is immune from challenge. Congress could, of course, enact a law blocking the corrupt deal and preventing the expenditure of funds, but that would mean assembling majorities in the House and Senate, overcoming a probable Senate filibuster and overriding Trump’s almost certain veto. That would require a two-thirds vote of both houses, which seems inconceivable given the fealty of many Republicans to Trump.

That leaves the federal courts. Under existing Supreme Court precedent, it’s hard to see who would have “standing” to bring a judicial challenge. The Supreme Court requires a challenger to demonstrate a “concrete and particularized” “injury in fact.” In short, neither a taxpayer nor a citizen has standing to challenge Trump’s heist merely because it’s blatantly illegal.

Time is of the essence

But there is a way to challenge this in court — and to do it with delicious irony.

In U.S. House of Representatives v. Burwell (2016), a majority of the House of Representatives voted to challenge aspects of the Affordable Care Act. The District Court held that the House of Representatives (and probably the Senate) can pass a resolution by simple majority vote — which is not subject to veto — authorizing a judicial challenge by the body to Executive action in violation of the Appropriations Clause, which provides: “No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”

In other words, the passage of a House or Senate resolution by majority vote would be enough to trigger judicial review of Trump’s effort to use a phony collusive “settlement” as an end run around Congress’ power of the purse. In the Senate, for example, the Democrats are likely to be joined by Republicans facing a re-election fight, like Sen. Susan Collins, R-ME, and by Republicans who Trump has targeted, like Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-LA, Sen. Thom Tillis, R-NC, Mitch McConnell, R-KY, and Sen. John Cornyn, R-TX.

Once the challenge gets to federal court, Trump seems sure to lose quickly. The payment of almost $1.8 billion is coming from the “judgment fund,” which Congress appropriated to settle federal cases against the United States. But there is no “settlement” because there was never a federal case to “settle.”

If the current Congress fails to act, the 2027 Congress can still challenge Trump’s effort. But time is of the essence: Once the money is disbursed, there is likely no way to get it back.

There is, however, a particular reason to do it before the 2026 midterms: Under the House and Senate rules, a resolution affecting the interests of the House or Senate is a privileged motion that cannot be delayed or tabled. That means a quick roll call that puts each Republican candidate in the position of having to take a public position on the phony slush fund. Either the motion passes easily, or Republicans must run with that vote around their necks.

Checks and balances

Federal cases require “adversity.” If one person controls both sides, the Supreme Court bars it as “collusive.” Since Trump controlled both sides of his case, the so-called settlement consisted of Trump negotiating with his image in a mirror. Without a real settlement, no DOJ funds can be disbursed through Trump’s slush fund and the IRS can get back to enforcing the tax law against everyone — even Trump and his friends and family.

The stakes here are much greater than $1.8 billion, though that is a staggering sum of money. This is about whether there really are checks and balances in our system of government, or whether we have created a presidency that really can do almost anything.

Burt Neuborne, one of the nation’s foremost civil liberties lawyers, teachers and scholars, is the founding legal director of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law. Erwin Chemerinsky is dean and professor of law at the UC Berkeley School of Law.

This story was originally published May 28, 2026 at 6:00 AM with the headline "Trump’s deal with the DOJ marks new level of unprecedented corruption | Opinion."