President Trump filed a notice of appeal challenging a federal judge's ruling that his $10 billion IRS lawsuit served an "improper purpose", a move that deepens a rift with two Republican senators blocking his attorney general pick.
The appeal, filed this week to the 11th Circuit, targets a ruling issued in early July by U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams, an Obama appointee who concluded Trump sued the IRS not to "vindicate rights" but to "manipulate the judicial process." Williams cast doubt on the legitimacy of a $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund that emerged from the lawsuit's settlement, a fund the Justice Department administers and that Trump designed to reimburse Americans he says the Biden administration targeted for political reasons.
Trump's court filings assert that the president holds jurisdiction over the Justice Department, the Treasury Department, and the IRS, a claim that frames the appeal as a direct challenge to Williams's conclusion that the executive branch effectively colluded with itself to create the fund.
The appeal landed in the middle of a separate but connected fight on Capitol Hill. Sens. John Cornyn of Texas and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, both Republicans, both outgoing members of Congress, have refused to advance Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche's nomination through the Senate Judiciary Committee. Their objection centers on the anti-weaponization fund.
Speaking to reporters at Camp David on Friday morning, Trump said the fund was "dead" and that administration officials had "agreed not to have" it. Within roughly 24 hours, he changed direction. On Saturday morning, Trump posted on Truth Social that he would bypass the Senate standoff if necessary:
"If Senators Cornyn and Tillis, both upset because I wouldn't Endorse them (they lost, and quit, respectively!), aren't going to approve Todd Blanche, one of the most respected professionals, according to everybody, in the Country, to be the United States Attorney General, then I will keep Todd as Acting A.G., and push hard to get the Anti-Weaponization Bill, which takes care of those who have been so badly treated by the Crooked Joe Biden (and Obuma!) Administration (I get nothing, although I was treated horribly!), PASSED."
He added: "Todd Blanche was a voice of reason! It will immediately be back on the table, and I will get it done."
Trump's pivot from declaring the fund finished to promising its revival, possibly through legislation, captured the whiplash that has defined this dispute for weeks. The Washington Examiner reported that it remains unclear whether the "Anti-Weaponization Bill" Trump referenced would codify the existing fund into law or create an entirely new mechanism.
That ambiguity did not sit well with Tillis. The North Carolina senator fired back on X, accusing Trump of planning to resurrect the fund despite his public assurances.
"Despite comments as late as yesterday that the fund is dead, President Trump clearly intends to resurrect the payout pot for punks either by inappropriately establishing another bogus fund or pushing Congress to vote for a bill that the majority of Republicans in the Senate would be against. It's unfortunate that Todd Blanche, who I consider qualified for the job, will not be confirmed because of this reversal. Hopefully, we can resolve this by Tuesday."
Two things stand out in Tillis's statement. First, he acknowledged Blanche is "qualified for the job", meaning the holdup has nothing to do with Blanche's credentials and everything to do with the fund. Second, Tillis claimed a majority of Senate Republicans would oppose the anti-weaponization legislation Trump is now championing. If accurate, that claim puts the president on the wrong side of his own caucus on this issue.
Trump framed the standoff differently. He attributed Cornyn's and Tillis's resistance not to policy principle but to personal grievance, claiming both senators were "upset because I wouldn't Endorse them." The original IRS lawsuit arose from what the Trump administration described as leaked tax records, and the $10 billion figure made it one of the largest suits a sitting president has ever filed against a federal agency.
The settlement that resolved the lawsuit created the $1.8 billion fund, money earmarked for individuals the Trump administration believes were unfairly targeted by the prior administration for political purposes. But Williams's ruling in early July threw the entire arrangement into question.
Williams did not merely reject the lawsuit on procedural grounds. She concluded it was filed for an "improper purpose" and wrote that Trump had sued the IRS to "manipulate the judicial process" rather than to "vindicate rights." Her ruling effectively said the president had colluded with his own government, filing a suit against agencies he controls in order to generate a settlement that funded a policy priority.
That framing carries a specific implication: the executive branch cannot sue itself and then settle with itself to create a billion-dollar fund outside the normal appropriations process. Whether the 11th Circuit agrees will determine whether the anti-weaponization fund has any legal future at all.
Trump's appeal argues the opposite, that presidential jurisdiction over the DOJ, Treasury, and the IRS gives the executive branch wide latitude in how it resolves internal disputes. The filing sets up a direct clash between the president's view of executive authority and a district court's determination that the lawsuit was a legal fiction.
Meanwhile, the practical fallout continues. With Cornyn and Tillis blocking Blanche's confirmation, the Justice Department's top job remains in acting status. Trump signaled he is prepared to live with that arrangement indefinitely. His Truth Social post suggested he would simply keep Blanche as Acting AG rather than fight for Senate confirmation, a move that would sidestep the Judiciary Committee entirely but leave the position without the permanence and political weight a confirmed attorney general carries.
The collapse of the fund's legal standing has not stopped the political fight over its purpose. Supporters of the fund argue it addresses a real grievance: Americans who faced audits, investigations, or enforcement actions driven by political motives under the Biden administration. Critics, including members of Trump's own party, see it as an end-run around Congress's spending authority.
Tillis's reference to a Tuesday deadline suggests some kind of negotiation or committee action may be imminent, though specifics remain unclear. Whether that deadline refers to a Judiciary Committee vote, a private meeting, or some other resolution point is not spelled out.
The dynamic is unusual. Cornyn and Tillis are both described as outgoing members of Congress, which means their leverage is temporary. But temporary leverage is still leverage when a president needs committee votes. Trump has shown a willingness to use executive workarounds when Congress resists, a pattern visible in other recent standoffs over legislation and nominations.
Blanche himself has not spoken publicly on the dispute, at least not in any statement captured in the available reporting. Tillis called him "qualified." Trump called him "one of the most respected professionals" in the country and "a voice of reason." Neither characterization is in dispute. The man caught in the middle appears to have the confidence of both sides, and the confirmation of neither.
Several questions remain unanswered. Who within the administration agreed with Trump on Friday that the fund was finished? What changed between Friday morning and Saturday morning to prompt the reversal? And if a majority of Senate Republicans oppose the anti-weaponization legislation, as Tillis claims, does the bill have any realistic path, or is Trump's threat to push it simply a pressure tactic aimed at moving Cornyn and Tillis off their position?
The 11th Circuit will now decide whether Williams got it right. If the appeals court upholds her ruling, the anti-weaponization fund dies a legal death regardless of what Congress does. If it reverses her, the fund, and the fight over it, comes roaring back.
When two Republican senators, a federal judge, and the president's own 24-hour reversal all point in different directions, the one thing that suffers most is the confirmation of a man everyone agrees can do the job.
