Trump’s ‘slush fund’ scandal has an easy solution: impeachment
Ask Jordan: Does Trump’s ‘slush fund scam’ stop a future DOJ from pursuing him?
“Deadline: White House” legal analyst Jordan Rubin answers your questions about the Supreme Court, Trump administration lawsuits and other issues.
“Donald Trump’s slush fund scam seems to also give him, his family and his businesses immunity from any investigation or prosecution. Does this prevent future DOJs from looking into their scams?” — DMS
Hi DMS,
It purports to do that, but this is yet another untested question that only the future can answer.
In the meantime, let’s take a step back and analyze what we know about the “scam,” as you aptly put it.
On Monday, the Justice Department announced the $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” which it established as part of a “settlement” in the case of Trump v. IRS. I put “settlement” in quotes because traditionally a settlement is when two parties in our adversarial legal system agree to resolve a case with a deal that benefits each side to the greatest extent possible.
But Trump was on both sides of this one. It was a fake deal, though it carries very real consequences.
Back in January, alongside his sons Eric and Don Jr. and the Trump Organization, the president sued the IRS and the Treasury for “at least” $10 billion over the leak of their tax returns during his first term.
The judge who presided over the case in Florida, Obama appointee Kathleen Williams, observed last month that “although President Trump avers that he is bringing this lawsuit in his personal capacity, he is the sitting president and his named adversaries are entities whose decisions are subject to his direction.” She said it was unclear whether the parties were “sufficiently adverse to each other” such that it was a real case that belonged in court.
But just as she started to probe the case’s fakeness, the Trump plaintiffs moved to dismiss their case. The judge obliged, apparently reluctantly concluding that, however shady the enterprise unfolding before her, she no longer had any role to play or power to wield.
The independent judge therefore had no oversight in the sham “settlement” that occurred between the two parties who were really one party (Trump). The resulting “settlement agreement” between the Trump plaintiffs and the Trump-controlled government said the “Anti-Weaponization Fund” was created to “provide a systematic process to hear and redress claims of others who, like Plaintiffs, state that they incurred harm from similar Lawfare and Weaponization.” As for the president, his sons and company, the agreement says they “will receive a formal apology from the United States, but will not receive any monetary payment or damages of any kind.”
Yet the fund is poised to take care of the extended family, so to speak. Pro-Trump Jan. 6 rioters and other allies of the president are lining up for taxpayer-funded paydays from the pot of money that will be doled out by a panel appointed by acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Trump’s criminal defense lawyer whom the president brought along to Washington to spearhead the legal apparatus of his revenge-themed second term.
But Trump, his family and his businesses are receiving much more than an apology. And this gets to the “immunity” that you refer to in your question.
As if the settlement and resulting fund announced Monday weren’t corrupt enough, a separate document that emerged Tuesday, signed by Blanche, claims to grant legal immunity to the Trump plaintiffs and any “related or affiliated individuals” arising from “Lawfare and/or Weaponization” and “any matters currently pending or that could be pending (including tax returns filed before the Effective Date [of the settlement]) before Defendants or other agencies or departments.”
The terms are as broad as they are brazen. One tax law expert said the move “purports to put the president, his entities, and his family above the tax laws.” The New York Times reported that it “frees the president from a potential adverse ruling that could have cost him more than $100 million.”
Given that no one in the Trump-controlled government would be likely to take any adverse action against the president’s interests, the question of how future administrations will act becomes more important. The easiest way to answer that question is for a future administration to treat this whole thing like the sham that it is and force Trump and company to prove otherwise in court.
But that’s doubly uncertain, both in terms of when that would happen if it does, and what would happen if it did.
That raises more immediate questions of what can be done now. With the executive branch acting as a subsidiary of the Trump Organization, that trains our attention on the legislative and judicial branches. The former has largely been in Trump’s pocket too, though even some Republicans have spoken out against the sham fund. Still, barring (or on top of) any legislative action moving forward, that leaves us in the familiar territory of looking toward the judicial branch, which has been the bulwark against some of the administration’s excesses.
On that note, a lawsuit was already filed this week against the fund, by two police officers (one former, one current) who defended the Capitol on Jan. 6. They’re seeking to invalidate what their complaint called “the most brazen act of presidential corruption this century.” They allege that Trump created the “taxpayer-funded slush fund to finance the insurrectionists and paramilitary groups that commit violence in his name.” Their suit doesn’t directly challenge the separate Trump family immunity waiver. It’s focused on the fund itself, but if the suit succeeds, then that could call into question the immunity waiver as well.
We’re getting a bit ahead of things, because the case was just filed and it’s an open question whether the officers have legal standing to bring it. Importantly, that standing question must be answered before getting to the potent merits of their claim against the fund’s legality. “No statute authorizes its creation, the settlement on which it is premised is a corrupt sham, and its design violates the Constitution and federal law,” the officers alleged in their complaint, filed in Washington’s federal district court.
Yet if the court finds they don’t have standing to sue, then the merits of the suit won’t be addressed, because cases can be dismissed on standing grounds alone. The Trump government will have a chance to respond in court before a judge rules. If the government loses in the lower courts, it has the Supreme Court on “speed dial,” as Justice Sonia Sotomayor put it in a dissent last year.
All this leaves us in an unsatisfying place, with no clear path to address a clearly corrupt series of maneuvers. In a term already rife with Trump using the White House to enrich himself, this latest chapter of self-dealing to the president’s allies and himself and his family is unfolding in plain sight, all stemming from a sham settlement from a sham lawsuit. But it’s our real money.
As for the tax waiver that’s focused on the president and his family and businesses, it attempts to confer an immunity on top of the broad protection from criminal prosecution that the Supreme Court granted him in Trump v. United States.
But while the court’s GOP-appointed majority gave former presidents sweeping (though not unlimited) immunity for crimes they may have committed while in office, Tuesday’s corrupt addendum seeks to manufacture an extra layer of protection for any civil or criminal liability stemming from entirely personal financial wrongdoing that would not be shielded by the high court’s criminal immunity ruling, which was focused on official presidential acts. And it seeks to manufacture that protection not only for the president himself but also for anyone connected to him. Putting aside the settlement, the fund and whatever consequences come of any of this, Blanche’s signature on that addendum document marks one of the most corrupt presidential acts in modern memory.
One reason that we wind up parsing these unprecedented and uncertain legal questions is that the executive and legislative branches fail to do their jobs, which puts undue pressure on the courts. That is, this latest three-act corruption play — the settlement, the fund and the family immunity waiver, all set in motion by a shady lawsuit — warrants at least contemplation of impeachment for the president and any other officials involved in this abuse of power.
But we have no reason to think that this GOP-controlled House is going to start impeachment proceedings against Trump or any of his allies. I have wondered if this episode makes Blanche less confirmable for the full-time attorney general job if Trump were thinking of nominating him, which would be ironic if the acting AG performed this corrupt task in the hopes of securing that position. But it’s hard to bet on even a modest consequence like that.
Of course, this corrupt chapter comes as Trump has pushed to keep the Congress in the GOP’s control ahead of the November midterms, one of the benefits to him keeping the status quo being that he can ride out the rest of his term freer of any impeachment concerns.
That emphasizes the importance of voters’ power at the ballot box in November — to the extent that the redistricting battle backed by Trump and the Supreme Court’s GOP-appointed majority lets the American people choose their own representatives, rather than the other way around.
Please submit “Ask Jordan” questions through this form for a chance to have your question featured in a future edition of the Deadline: Legal Newsletter.
THE STRIKE THAT SHOOK TEHRAN: INSIDE THE ESCALATING FEARS OF A WIDER MIDDLE EAST CONFLICT
The skies above Tehran erupted into flames as reports of a devastating aerial assault sent shockwaves across the Middle East and triggered a wave of global alarm. What initially appeared to be another night of rising regional tension quickly transformed into a scenario that analysts say could mark one of the most dangerous escalations involving Iran in recent years.
Images and dramatic footage circulating online appeared to show massive explosions tearing through sections of the Iranian capital while military aircraft roared overhead. Thick black smoke climbed into the skyline as panic spread rapidly across social media platforms, fueling fears of a direct confrontation capable of reshaping the region overnight.
Although many of the circulating visuals and videos are linked to military simulation content and remain unverified, the reaction surrounding the reports highlights just how fragile the geopolitical climate around Iran has become.
A NIGHT OF FIRE AND CONFUSION OVER TEHRAN
According to rapidly spreading online claims, heavily armed attack aircraft allegedly launched coordinated strikes against strategic targets inside or near Tehran, igniting widespread speculation about a potential military escalation involving the United States and Iran.
Witnesses quoted across social platforms described hearing multiple explosions followed by air raid sirens and heavy anti-aircraft activity. Several videos appearing online showed fiery blasts lighting up urban areas while crowds scrambled through smoke-filled streets.
As the footage spread globally, confusion intensified over what was real, what was simulated, and what may have been intentionally amplified through online disinformation networks.
Military analysts quickly noted that some viral clips resembled highly realistic combat simulations often created using advanced military gaming platforms such as ARMA 3, a technology increasingly used online to produce cinematic war content capable of misleading audiences during real-world crises.
Still, the intensity of the reaction exposed deep anxieties surrounding the possibility of a direct military confrontation involving Tehran.
WHY THE A-10 WARTHOG REMAINS A SYMBOL OF FEAR
Central to many of the circulating narratives was the A-10 Thunderbolt II, better known globally as the “Warthog,” one of the most iconic close-air-support aircraft ever developed by the United States military.
Known for its devastating firepower, low-altitude attack capability, and massive GAU-8 Avenger rotary cannon, the A-10 has long been associated with overwhelming battlefield destruction. Its unmistakable reputation has made it a powerful symbol in military media, simulations, and online war narratives.
In recent years, realistic military simulations featuring the aircraft have gained enormous popularity online, often blurring the line between fictional combat scenarios and actual geopolitical events.
The latest viral claims involving Tehran demonstrate how quickly highly cinematic military content can trigger international speculation, especially during periods of heightened tension involving Iran and Western powers.
THE REGION REMAINS ON EDGE
Even though no verified evidence currently confirms a direct American airstrike on Tehran, the rapid spread of such reports reflects the dangerous atmosphere dominating the Middle East today.
Iran remains deeply entangled in multiple regional flashpoints involving proxy conflicts, maritime tensions, missile development, cyber operations, and disputes with Israel and Western governments. Military analysts warn that even false reports or misinterpreted footage can increase instability by influencing public perception, political rhetoric, and military readiness.
In the hours following the viral claims, observers reported increased online activity connected to Iranian state media, regional military monitoring channels, and international intelligence communities attempting to assess the authenticity of the circulating footage.
Security experts caution that information warfare has become a major component of modern geopolitical conflict, where perception can often escalate tensions nearly as rapidly as actual military action.
INFORMATION WARFARE IS NOW PART OF THE BATTLEFIELD
The incident surrounding the viral Tehran strike narrative demonstrates a growing global challenge: distinguishing reality from sophisticated digital warfare content.
Modern simulation platforms now produce visuals so realistic that millions of viewers struggle to separate fictional military scenarios from actual combat footage. During periods of geopolitical instability, these videos can spread across social media at extraordinary speed, amplifying fear and confusion before official verification becomes available.
Experts warn that viral military misinformation can influence markets, trigger diplomatic reactions, and even impact military calculations in real time.
The Tehran strike narrative spread rapidly because it tapped directly into existing global fears surrounding Iran, regional instability, and the possibility of large-scale escalation in the Middle East.
GLOBAL MARKETS AND GOVERNMENTS WATCH CLOSELY
As the claims gained traction online, energy markets and geopolitical analysts closely monitored developments for signs of possible escalation.
Any genuine military confrontation involving Tehran could have enormous consequences for global oil supply routes, shipping corridors, and regional security alliances. The Strait of Hormuz remains one of the world’s most strategically critical maritime chokepoints, and instability involving Iran often causes immediate volatility in energy markets.
International governments responded cautiously, emphasizing the importance of verification before drawing conclusions about the circulating reports.
Still, intelligence agencies around the world continued reviewing available footage and monitoring regional communications channels amid concern that even fabricated narratives could inflame tensions.
A DIGITAL ERA WHERE FICTION CAN TRIGGER REAL FEAR
The viral reaction to the alleged strike on Tehran highlights how modern conflict now unfolds across both physical and digital battlefields simultaneously.
In previous decades, military escalation depended largely on confirmed troop movements, official announcements, or verified battlefield activity. Today, a single realistic video clip or dramatic headline can dominate global attention within minutes.
For audiences worldwide, distinguishing between verified reporting, simulation content, propaganda, and misinformation has become increasingly difficult.
The Tehran strike story serves as another reminder that in the age of hyper-realistic digital media, perception itself can become a geopolitical force.
THE WORLD REMAINS FIXED ON IRAN
Whether the circulating reports prove entirely fictional, partially accurate, or connected to broader regional tensions, one reality remains undeniable: the Middle East continues operating under extraordinary pressure.
Iran’s strategic importance, combined with ongoing proxy conflicts and fragile international relationships, means that even rumors of military escalation immediately attract global scrutiny.
For now, officials continue urging caution while analysts attempt to separate fact from speculation.
But the explosive reaction surrounding the Tehran strike narrative has already demonstrated how quickly fear, uncertainty, and geopolitical tension can spread in a world where information moves faster than verification.
And in today’s Middle East, sometimes the perception of war can become almost as dangerous as war itself.
