The IRS settlement prevents audits related to Trump, a controversial fund that is difficult to challenge in court, experts say.

Opponents of President Donald Trump’s agreement with the Internal Revenue Service will face major challenges in challenging its 1.776 billion US fund victims of alleged political “weaponization” and its provision that prevents his tax audits, according to legal experts.

Congressional Democrats derided the so-called Anti-Weaponization Fund as a slush fund to direct taxpayer dollars to Trump’s political allies, while watchdog groups called the tax protection deal illegal. Several Republicans also expressed concern about the plan.

Harry Dunn and Daniel Hodges, the two police officers who defended the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, against the failed request of Trump supporters to stop Congress from confirming the victory of Democrat Joe Biden in the 2020 election, have already sued. The police suspect that this fund will reward and arm the protesters who have harassed them and threatened to kill them.

Legal experts say it is unclear whether the opposition will be able to block the payments or reverse Trump’s shield against past tax audits if Congress, controlled by Trump’s Republicans, does not remain silent.

In part, that’s because Trump dismissed his $10-billion lawsuit against the IRS before the settlement was announced, preventing the judge in that case from doing anything.

“There is no longer any room to challenge the legality of this agreement,” said Danny Werfel, who served as IRS commissioner during the Biden administration.

The leader of the Proud Boys says he will apply

The Justice Department announced the fund on Monday, shortly after Trump voluntarily dropped his lawsuit accusing the IRS of wrongdoing in media leaks of his taxes during his first term as president.

Trump – who said he was only advised of the planned fund last weekend – also dismissed claims about the government’s investigation into ties between his 2016 presidential campaign and Russia, and the FBI’s 2022 search of his Mar-a-Lago home in Florida for classified documents he kept after his first term ended. Trump will also apologize under the plan.

On Tuesday, the Justice Department quietly released an addendum signed that day by acting US attorney general Todd Blanche, which “BARRED AND ADVISED” the government from prosecuting or pursuing pending tax claims against Trump, his family and his businesses.

This fund worth $1.776 billion, which seems to interest the founding year of the country, will be controlled by those who cooperate with the president, who can remove any member of the commission.

It will be used to compensate people who say they were harmed by the US government’s “arms or law enforcement.” Trump has accused the Biden administration of improperly using law enforcement, intelligence and regulatory agencies to target him and his allies, as prominent Democrats accused of wrongdoing were also prosecuted at the time.

The fund will be financed from the Judgment Fund, which Congress established in 1956 to pay legal claims against the government.

Blanche, who was Trump’s lawyer during his leadership, denied allegations by members of the US Senate on Tuesday that he was putting the president’s demands above the constitution. Blanche compared the fund to a $680-million fund created in 2010 for Native American farmers during the administration of Democratic President Barack Obama to settle the long-running Keepseagle case.

Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland called that comparison “incredibly misleading,” as it was reviewed and upheld by a federal judge. Blanche said the IRS agreement will not be reviewed by the court.

Blanche also said the January 6 defendants, who have received clemency from Trump, would be eligible to apply but told CNN in an interview that commissioners will consider their underlying behavior.

Enrique Tarrio, the leader of the Proud Boys sentenced to 22 years for the January 6 violent coup, told Reuters he planned to apply to the fund, thinking he could get between $2 million and $5 million.

Plaintiffs must prove injury

Legal experts said opponents of the $1.776 billion fund will have a difficult time establishing a legal right to sue, known as standing, because it may be difficult to show they were harmed in some way.

Two police officers sued in federal court in Washington and said they should face damages because the fund will encourage the defendants on January 6 to continue to threaten them and cause violence.

“The increased risk of threats, harassment and violence our plaintiffs suffer as a result gives standing,” said Public Integrity Project CEO Brendan Ballou, who filed the lawsuit.

Some experts said the best chance to challenge the fund may come later, when applicants may claim they were harmed because their payments were too low.

Josh Gardner, the attorney who led the Justice Department’s handling of the Keepseagle case, pointed to Hunter Biden, the former president’s son who was found guilty of tax and gun charges during his father’s presidency in a case pursued by Trump’s federal prosecutor.

President Biden pardoned his son seven weeks before Trump returned to office.

“If Hunter Biden had brought a claim and his claim had been denied, he would not have challenged not only his denial, but I think the entire structure of this agreement,” Gardner said.

If the plaintiffs get standing, they could argue that the IRS agreement violates several laws, according to legal experts.

One issue is whether the fund violates the Appropriations Clause of the US Constitution, which gives Congress the power to fund the fund, because US lawmakers did not authorize it.

Ninety-three Democratic lawmakers filed a legal brief making that point shortly after Trump dismissed his lawsuit but before the judge formally closed the case.

There is also the question of whether Trump’s provision of tax immunity violates US law that protects against political interference in taxpayer audits.

Werfel, a former IRS commissioner, added that future administrations often undo the illegal actions of previous administrations.

Some experts said that one or both chambers of Congress, although not lawmakers, could challenge the fund. That won’t happen yet, with Republicans in control of the House of Representatives and the Senate.