August 7, 2026 - Alexandria, Va. – Plaintiffs in Floyd et al. v. U.S. Department of Justice et al. on Thursday filed an amended complaint in their challenge to the Trump-Vance administration’s so-called “Anti-Weaponization Fund.” The amended complaint challenges additional actions arising from the Trump v. IRS lawsuit and collusive agreement that created the $1.776 billion slush fund, including an immunity order issued by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche that shields President Trump, his family, and an undefined universe of businesses from any federal tax audits, liability, and other government claims related to any conduct before May 18, 2026. 

Plaintiffs allege that the immunity order violates the Internal Revenue Code, which prohibits the president from directly or indirectly interfering with tax audits, and violates the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits the government from giving the president emoluments. They also argue that the immunity order places career Internal Revenue Service employees in an untenable position by compelling them to carry out unlawful orders.

Plaintiffs include former career federal prosecutor Andrew Floyd, Professor Jonathan Caravello, the City of New Haven, the National Abortion Federation (NAF), Common Cause, and the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU). Plaintiffs are represented by Democracy Forward.

In June, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted plaintiffs’ request to halt further implementation of the slush fund. Since then, the Trump-Vance administration has made conflicting statements about the slush fund not moving forward, while refusing to say so under penalty of perjury in court or to modify the Trump v. IRS agreement.

On August 3, after Blanche claimed on social media that the fund has been rescinded, Democracy Forward, as part of its representation of plaintiffs in this case, sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) asking whether the administration will submit sworn assurances previously sought by the court, amend the settlement agreement that created the slush fund, and clarify the scope of the related immunity order. The Trump-Vance administration has not taken any of those steps. And it has continued to defend the complete release of tax audits and tax liability for President Trump and those “related” to or “affiliated” with him.

The amended complaint states that the administration’s subsequent actions confirmed that both the fund and the immunity order remain viable and harmful despite the administration’s public statements. Plaintiffs ask the court to set aside both actions as unlawful and prevent the administration from implementing either of them.

“The IRS should not be weaponized to shield President Trump, his family, and their businesses from paying their fair share of federal taxes or from being subject to proper review and audits by the agency. Every American is asked to pay their taxes, every American is expected to be truthful on their taxes, and every American is subject to federal tax audits to ensure the integrity of their tax statements. That includes the president, his family and his businesses,” said New Haven Mayor Justin Elicker. “New Haveners want their federal leaders and federal government to adhere and comply with the same laws they do, and we’ll continue to hold our president and leaders to account to make sure that happens.”

“As the leading membership organization for abortion providers and clinics nationwide, NAF is all too familiar with Trump’s style of governance: laws for thee, but not me,” said Brittany Fonteno, president and CEO at the National Abortion Federation. “This has led to clinic violence without accountability, and convicted felons enjoying payouts at the taxpayers’ expense. We join our partners in asking the court to affirm no person, politician, or president is above the law.” 

“Blanche’s toothless statements are meaningless,” said Maryam Jazini Dorcheh, vice president of litigation at Common Cause. “The slush fund was merely the tip of the iceberg of Trump’s systemic corruption, masking a dangerous immunity deal that lets him, his family, and his businesses off the hook for civil and criminal misconduct. We’ve expanded our lawsuit to block this illegal deal before taxpayers pay the ultimate price.”

“At its core, this case is about protecting the integrity of the federal civil service and employees,” said NTEU National President Doreen Greenwald. “NTEU is joining this lawsuit to make it clear: IRS employees should never be forced to choose between following a political directive to keep their job and following the law and their oath to the Constitution.”

“It is unprecedented and unlawful for the IRS to allow the president and his family to be exempt from review, and we are honored to represent brave IRS employees in this first of its kind case challenging the unlawful scheme, while we continue to pursue the challenge to the $1.776 billion slush fund that will line the pockets of violent criminals, including those who perpetrated the attacks on the Capitol and our elections on January 6. The Acting Attorney General cannot tell the public the slush fund is dead while preserving every legal mechanism necessary to resurrect it at a moment’s notice,” said Skye Perryman, President and CEO of Democracy Forward. “This amended complaint shows that despite repeated public claims that the slush fund has been rescinded, the administration has refused to dismantle the agreement that created it and refused to foreclose bringing it back.”

The case is Andrew Floyd et al. v. U.S. Department of Justice et al., and the legal team at Democracy Forward includes Pooja Boisture, Jyoti Jasrasaria, Aman George, Lisa Newman, Cynthia Liao, Ayesha Khan, Robin Thurston, and Skye Perryman. 

Read the amended complaint here.

Source: Democracy Forward