Salon76%
“There was never a case”: Judge tosses Trump IRS settlement, accuses admin of settling with itself 57%
By Alex Galbraith75%
7/13/2026, 7:14:09 PM
Keywords: Trump, Irs, Settlement, Judge, Lawsuit, Treasury Department, Jan 6 Rioters, Taxpayer Funds
BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Circular Reasoning, and Burden of Proof, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 29.5% saturation with 152 hits. Analysis detected 765 faulty-reasoning hits from 515 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 54% and a BS Rank of 57% (9,225 of 21,180 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 56.40% of the article peer group.
A federal judge threw out a settlement between the IRS and Donald Trump , concluding that the two parties to the case being settled were one and the same.
In her ruling , U.S.
District Judge Kathleen Williams accused the entire case of being a bit of play-acting between the president and an executive department entirely under his control.
Williams said that Trump and the Treasury were using a sham case to lend “legitimacy” to a redirection of taxpayer funds toward Trump and his allies.
“This action was never about a party seeking judicial resolution of a legal issue or a factual dispute.
The nature of the suit itself and the conduct of the Parties and counsel from its filing make plain that this was an attempt to use the Court to provide some legitimacy to an agreement to confer immunity to people and entities affiliated with the President and to earmark billions of dollars from American taxpayers to redress grievances not defined in the law,” she wrote.
“Court finds that this matter was brought for an improper purpose—to gain the imprimatur of judicial legitimacy for a ‘settlement’ that had no viable basis in law or fact.”
Trump’s big beautiful income tax dodge
Williams found that Trump’s power over the Treasury stretched the adversary system of law in the United States past its breaking point.
“Adverseness is not determined merely by affixing the labels ‘plaintiff’ and ‘defendant’ to the parties,” she explained.
“Defendants are the Treasury Department—an Executive agency—and the IRS, the largest bureau of the Treasury Department.
Both Defendants are unquestionably part of the Executive Branch and ultimately answer to its Chief Executive, President Trump.
Start your day with essential news from Salon.
Sign up for our free morning newsletter , Crash Course.
As part of the settlement of a $10 billion lawsuit filed by Trump and his sons against the IRS, a $1.7 billion fund for payments to people who had been targeted by the federal government under previous administrations.
Critics worried that this vaguely defined fund was a way for Trump to pass money to himself, his allies and Jan. 6 rioters.
Williams tossed this settlement, saying that there was “case” that needed to be settled in the first place.
“There was never adverseness between the parties; there was never a case or controversy; and there was never a question as to who would prevail,” she wrote.
Williams also pushed disciplinary action for several of Trump’s attorneys.
She referred attorney Alejandro Brito to the Florida Bar.
She ordered the Southern District of Florida to deny any requests from attorney Daniel Epstein to join cases in the district for one year.
“Highway robbery”: Dems accuse Trump of creating $1.7 billion “slush fund” for Jan. 6 defendants
Trump and sons seek $10 billion taxpayer-funded payday in IRS lawsuit
Justice Department gifts Trump with slush fund
The post “There was never a case”: Judge tosses Trump IRS settlement, accuses admin of settling with itself appeared first on Salon.com .
Speakers
1speaker63%attributed speech191writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Selected voice
80%flagged-word coverageKathleen Williams
324 attributed words100% of attributed speech50% writer coverage
Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Analysis
Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.