A group of 35 retired federal judges issues a public criticism of former President Donald Trump’s defense of an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) settlement, arguing the settlement reflects inappropriate coordination rather than lawful disagreement between parties. The judges’ statement targets Trump’s characterization of the legal posture and dispute, saying the defense is “laughable” and disputing claims that there was a genuine adversarial relationship.
Citing statements attributed to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the judges also contend that DOJ actions—specifically its decision to abandon the “Anti-Weaponization Fund”—undercut the argument that the parties were actually adverse. In their view, those actions indicate the parties were aligned rather than opposed, and therefore the settlement should be viewed differently than Trump suggests.
While the outlets reporting the judges’ reaction summarize their critique and the referenced DOJ steps, the reporting provided here does not include detailed case filings, legal briefs, or a direct response from the DOJ or Trump beyond the defense being criticized.
