Thirty-five retired federal judges criticize arguments made by former President Donald Trump related to an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) settlement. According to the reports, the judges characterize Trump’s defense as implausible, describing it in terms such as “laughable” and arguing the settlement reflects collusion. The judges’ assessment centers on what they describe as signals that the parties involved were not truly adversarial, pointing to the U.S. Department of Justice’s decision to abandon the Anti-Weaponization Fund unilaterally. They argue that this withdrawal indicates the parties were not opposing one another in practice. While the outlets do not provide additional case-specific details beyond the judges’ critique, the underlying thrust is that the retired judges contend Trump’s characterization of the dispute and settlement is inconsistent with the conduct they highlight. The reports frame the judges’ statements as a critique of the legal and factual reasoning used to defend the settlement, rather than as a new judicial ruling by an active court.