A judge rules against a $1.8 billion fund described as a “slush fund” tied to compensation for Trump political allies, narrowing or striking parts of the arrangement. According to reporting, the court decision removes or “guts” the fund’s operation rather than letting it proceed as originally structured. Separately, the judge also criticizes the lawyers involved in the matter, describing alleged corruption in their conduct. The outlets framing the case characterize the fund as intended to channel money to political supporters. The combined reports indicate the judge’s ruling both limits the financial mechanism and raises questions about how the legal arguments were presented or how related claims were supported. While details of the broader litigation and specific procedural steps are not fully provided in the excerpts, the consistent points across the sources are that a judge intervenes to curtail the $1.8 billion fund and issues stern criticism toward the attorneys in the case. The decision and the language attributed to the court are presented as central developments in the dispute over the fund’s legitimacy and the lawyers’ conduct.