‘Shameless venality’: how a flurry of lawsuits has thwarted Trump’s self-enrichment schemes
Federal judges have issued stinging rejections to Donald Trump’s financial and political schemes, striking down a $1.8bn slush fund and ordering the removal of taxpayer-funded campaign ads.
A series of lawsuits filed by non-partisan groups has challenged President Donald Trump’s attempts to increase his wealth and boost Republican electoral prospects. The suits have targeted schemes to reduce tax liabilities, boost his Truth Social platform, and use federal funds for partisan ads. Federal judges in Florida and New York have used strong language to condemn and nullify some of these financial stratagems.
The major legal challenges have been brought by organizations such as the Democracy Defenders Fund and the Campaign Legal Center. These groups argue that Trump’s actions violate the law and the public trust. In response, judges have issued rulings that have forced the administration to abandon or modify several of its initiatives.
Slush fund struck down
Florida judge Kathleen Williams castigated a Trump-backed scheme to settle a $10bn lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over a leak of his tax information. The plan involved setting up a $1.8bn slush fund to pay alleged victims of political persecutions under Joe Biden and granting Trump immunity from IRS audits before May 2026. Williams ruled that the deal was “premised on deception” and a “fraud against the court”.
The justice department’s leadership believes it has one chief client: President Trump. They have allowed him to use the department to protect his financial interests, punish his enemies, and reward his friends.
In a separate legal blow, a federal judge in New York rebuked Trump for channeling $20m of public funds to run ads touting his administration’s achievements. The ads were widely attacked as campaign ads and propaganda. The Campaign Legal Center, along with other groups, sued to stop the use of taxpayer money for these partisan messages.
Judge Jennifer Rochon issued two restraining orders in October to stop the use of public funds for the ads. In her second order, she ruled that three ads could no longer run on Instagram and two other sites since they were “purely partisan.” One of the ads echoed Trump’s claim that if Republicans maintained control of Congress, all Americans would receive $5,000.
The Department of Homeland Security used $20m in taxpayer dollars to pay a private ad agency for airtime for government-created propaganda. This is blatantly illegal.
Despite the legal challenges, Trump initially defended using government funds for the ads, stating that tapping public funds was “rather standard.” However, facing growing criticism from both Democrats and some Republicans, he announced he would pay for them himself from his political fundraising operation. The justice department had attempted to forestall the first restraining order by asserting that the alleged offending conduct would end the next day.
Truth Social access lawsuit
In another pending legal battle, Democracy Defenders Fund filed a lawsuit to block a Trump financial gambit to offer special early access to his Truth Social posts. The scheme, dubbed “Trump API,” would have allowed users who pay a fee as high as $100,000 per month to access his posts before the general public. The lawsuit was filed in mid-September against Trump Media and Technology Group, the parent company of Truth Social.
San Francisco city attorney David Chiu asked the San Francisco superior court to bar the service and provide monetary damages for violating the public trust and the state’s unfair competition law. A spokesperson for Trump Media ridiculed the lawsuit, charging that “the people of California should outsource their future lawsuits to AI chatbots.” The case remains in the courts, with a ruling yet to be issued.
Courts push back
Former judges and ex-DoJ lawyers say that Trump’s moves to boost his bottom line and political drives with backing from DoJ lawyers exemplify various kinds of “corruption.” Retired federal appeals court judge J Michael Luttig noted that the courts have recently begun to strike down Trump’s countless schemes of “blatant and shameless venality and corruption” in the forms of self-enrichment, bribery, and extortion.
The courts have recently begun to strike down Trump’s countless schemes of blatant and shameless venality and corruption in the forms of self-enrichment, bribery, and extortion. That is the through-line of these three cases and the numerous other cases to come.
Luttig’s analysis was underscored by a July lawsuit filed by Democracy Defenders Fund and a coalition of 35 ex-judges to kill the $1.8bn fund. The DoJ dropped the slush-fund idea after Williams’s ruling and political blowback by Congress. However, a provision providing immunity to Trump, his family, and the Trump Organization from investigations of past tax matters remains in effect as compensation over the leak of his tax returns.
In late September, a federal appeals court for the 11th circuit rejected a request from Trump and his lawyers to immediately lift sanctions imposed by Judge Williams. The court ruled that the lawyers had not demonstrated they would succeed in challenging the finding that they acted in bad faith. The legal battles continue, with the next steps in these cases yet to be determined.
Related
