‘Shameless venality’: how a flurry of lawsuits has thwarted Trump’s self-enrichment schemes
Courts have issued stinging rebukes to president’s ‘blatant’ financial ploys as pro-democracy groups defend ‘government of laws, not of men’ pillar Donald Trump’s legal and political ploys to increase his wealth and boost Republican electoral prospects have fueled lawsuits by non-partisan groups, prompting federal judges to issue stinging rejections to some of the president’s schemes. Several…
Courts have rebuked President Trump's financial maneuvers, as pro-democracy groups challenge his financial schemes and defend the 'government of laws, not of men' principle. Lawsuits were filed in 2026 against Trump's attempts to reduce tax liabilities, increase Truth Social platform revenue, and help Republicans through partisan ads, all funded by federal resources.
Nonpartisan groups like Democracy Defenders Fund and Campaign Legal Center spearheaded these lawsuits. In response, judges in Florida and New York condemned Trump's financial strategies with strong language. Florida judge Kathleen Williams criticized a Trump-backed deal to create a $1.8bn fund for alleged political persecution victims, deeming it "premised on deception" and fraud.
In another setback for Trump, a federal judge in New York rebuked him for channeling $20m of public funds to run propaganda ads. Former judges and ex-DoJ lawyers accused Trump's actions of corruption, with Stacey Young stating that the justice department leadership views Trump as their primary client. Retired federal appeals court judge J Michael Luttig echoed similar sentiments, emphasizing the courts' recent rejection of Trump's "blatant and shameless venality and corruption."
Luttig noted that these court rebuffs signal a broader trend of federal courts rejecting unconstitutional presidential initiatives. Despite Williams's objections, a provision still allows Trump, his family, and the Trump Organization to be immune from IRS tax investigations and prosecutions. However, a lawsuit filed by Democracy Defenders Fund and 35 ex-judges aimed to kill a key piece of Trump's proposed settlement of his $10bn lawsuit against the IRS, which would have established a $1.8bn fund for alleged political persecution victims.
The DoJ dropped the slush-fund idea after Williams's ruling. Although Democratic senators criticized the ruling, the provision remains in effect.
Written by urgent.news from Guardian Business's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
This story
This is one outlet's version. Read the fullest account.
