Leading Democratic lawmakers on two key U.S. House of Representatives committees have launched a new push to force senior leaders from the Department of Justice and Treasury Department to explain the controversial settlement of President Donald Trump’s $10 billion civil suit against the Internal Revenue Service, a deal Democrats deride as an orchestrated “sham” designed for political self-dealing.
In a formal letter sent Wednesday to acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and IRS CEO Frank Bisignano, the top Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee and Ways and Means Committee—Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Richard Neal of Massachusetts, respectively—leveled harsh condemnation against the agreement, calling it “one of the most brazen acts of public corruption and self-dealing in American history.”
The lawmakers argue that the current leadership at the DOJ and IRS chose to capitulate rather than protect public funds from what they call a clear grab for private political gain. Central to their criticism is the establishment of a $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” created as part of the settlement, which Raskin and Neal label a taxpayer shakedown meant to direct public money to the president’s political allies—including the pro-Trump rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.
The pair added that the massive, unaccountable fund will be overseen by a handpicked commission made up entirely of Trump’s political cronies, and the terms of the original settlement block both Congress and the general public from ever learning which individuals receive payments from the pool of public money. According to prior reporting from CNN, the first known claim to the fund was already filed this week by Michael Caputo, a long-time Trump advisor and former White House official. Caputo describes his family as “survivors of the illegal Russiagate investigations” and is seeking $2.7 million in compensation from the fund.
House Democrats emphasized that the U.S. Constitution grants Congress alone the power of the purse through its appropriations clause, and congressional leaders never approved or allocated taxpayer funds for the $1.776 billion political fund. “This settlement is a transparent attempt to circumvent the separation of powers and use the judgment fund for a scam Congress never contemplated: rewarding the president’s political allies at the expense of American taxpayers,” the letter reads.
Beyond the creation of the controversial fund, the settlement permanently bars the IRS from pursuing any further legal or administrative action against Trump and his immediate family members. Lawmakers say the deal effectively grants a sweeping, unofficial “super-pardon” to the president, his family, and all connected business entities. This immunity releases them from any potential accountability for unpaid taxes, as well as from other ongoing federal civil and criminal probes into allegations including insider trading, antitrust violations, false statements, and sexual harassment.
Raskin and Neal have ordered the federal agencies to preserve all records tied to the settlement and fund creation, including both physical documents and electronically stored information—covering communications sent via private emails, text messages, encrypted apps like Signal, and all other non-official communication channels. They have also given agency leaders a deadline of next week to turn over the IRS internal memorandum on the settlement, all related supporting records, and formal responses to a list of probing questions. The deadline comes ahead of Bessent’s scheduled public appearance before the Ways and Means Committee.
The controversy has already drawn scrutiny on Capitol Hill from both chambers. Blanche appeared before the Senate on Tuesday to testify on the DOJ’s annual budget request, where he faced a wave of questions from Democratic lawmakers pushing back on the deal. He attempted to push back against the framing put forward by Senate Appropriations Committee Vice Chair Patty Murray of Washington, who has argued the fund amounts to Trump using tax dollars to enrich his own political circle. Democratic Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware questioned Blanche about requirements for public disclosure of payouts and safeguards to prevent Trump family members from accessing the fund, while Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland raised questions about whether January 6 rioters—including those who attacked Capitol police and even those convicted of child sex crimes—would qualify for payments.
Hours after the House Democrats released their letter on Wednesday morning, two Capitol Police officers who defended the building during the 2021 attack filed a separate federal lawsuit seeking to dissolve the fund entirely. Their legal argument argues that no federal statute authorizes the fund’s creation, the underlying settlement is a corrupt sham, and the fund’s design violates both the U.S. Constitution and federal law.
Separately, Raskin introduced new standalone legislation Wednesday, the No Taxpayer-Funded Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2026, designed to explicitly block Trump’s fund from operating. He also submitted a motion to issue formal subpoenas for Blanche, Bisignano, Bessent, and two other officials directly involved in the deal: Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward and Treasury Department General Counsel Brian Morrissey. Morrissey notably resigned from his post as the deal was publicly announced.
“Mr. Blanche orchestrated this outrageous slush fund as part of the settlement with Donald Trump, which was also signed by Mr. Woodward, and Mr. Bessent will oversee the payout of these funds,” Raskin said in a public statement. “Mr. Bisignano signed off on this settlement for the IRS, and Brian Morrissey remarkably resigned as this deal was being announced. These individuals all possess critical insights into Trump’s self-dealing scheme with his own agencies to create this fund and reward his supporters and friends.”
The Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee voted to reject the proposed subpoenas along a strict party-line vote, ending the immediate push for congressional testimony from the involved officials.