A progressive US senator on Monday welcomed a federal judge’s ruling that found President Donald Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service was an illegal act of self-dealing, while calling for the Republican to be impeached for a third time.

Trump and his two eldest sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, “acted in bad faith and for an improper purpose by ‘collusively filing a lawsuit with claims subject to multiple dispositive defenses solely to provide cover for a collusive settlement,’” US District Judge for the Southern District of Florida Kathleen Williams—who was appointed by former President Barack Obama—wrote in her 56-page ruling.

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) called Williams’ order “a scalding, blistering judicial opinion calling out Trump’s sham litigation, striking down his corrupt IRS immunity, and holding his sycophant lawyers to account.”

“That’s a good start,” the senator said. “Impeachment is next.”

Finding that “sanctions are appropriate here,” Williams referred Trump’s personal attorney Alejandro Brito to the Florida Bar for “its consideration, review, and determination as to whether any disciplinary action is appropriate in light of the findings and rulings made in this order.”

Williams also banned another one of the president’s personal lawyers, Daniel Epstein—who is not related to Jeffrey Epstein, the late convicted child sex criminal and former close friend of Trump—from seeking admission to practice law in the Southern District of Florida for one year.

The judge further found that acting US Attorney General Todd Blanche’s “apparent capacity to speak for both plaintiffs and defendants, sign a ‘settlement’ document on behalf of all parties to this action, and then repudiate part of that agreement, demonstrates that there was only one party whose interests were being represented throughout this case.”

In January, Trump and his sons sued the Internal Revenue Service and US Treasury Department for $10 billion over the leak of the president’s tax returns by a former IRS contractor. Trump’s own Department of Justice (DOJ) then settled the case in May by agreeing to exempt the plaintiffs from future IRS audits and create a roughly $1.776 billion settlement slush fund for people claiming they were unfairly targeted by the government.

Beneficiaries of the so-called “Anti-Weaponization Fund” were expected to include January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrectionists, roughly 1,500 of whom were pardoned by Trump and dozens of whom have since been charged or convicted for serious crimes, including child sex crimes, rape, grand larceny, burglary, home invasion, gun violations, death threats against public officials, and fatal DUI incidents.

Blanche has signaled that the DOJ will no longer pursue the creation of the slush fund.

Williams wrote in her ruling that “certainly, a court should not be a forum for a party that cynically views a lawsuit as a vehicle to achieve a predetermined outcome: ‘I’m suing myself.”

“President Trump did not pursue his claims until he once again occupied the White House and had appointed his former lawyer, and the former lawyer of persons who are putative beneficiaries of the ‘Anti-Weaponization Fund,c’ to prominent positions in the DOJ,” she continued. “These officials then negotiated on behalf of the United States, with his current lawyers, including his former White House counsel, to reach a ‘settlement.’ It is risible to suggest that there was ever adverseness between the parties.”

“Even the fund amount—$1.776 billion—speaks of a ‘branding’ effort rather than a deliberate and thoughtful calculation of damages,” the judge added.

A spokesperson for Trump’s legal team responded to Monday’s order in a statement asserting that “the IRS wrongly allowed a rogue, politically motivated employee to leak private and confidential information about President Trump, his family, and the Trump Organization to The New York Times, ProPublica, and other left-wing news outlets, which was then illegally released to millions of people.”

“President Trump continues to hold those who wrong America and Americans accountable,” the statement added.

Defenders of the rule of law welcomed Monday’s ruling, with Robert Weissman and Lisa Gilbert, co-presidents of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, taking a swipe at Trump’s “brilliant idea of suing the government he runs and resolving the lawsuit with the creation of an illegal and unconstitutional nearly $1.8 billion slush fund, paid for at taxpayer expense and likely to be distributed to January 6 insurrectionists, among others, as well with as an immunity deal protecting Trump and his family from IRS investigation.”

“Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche was a willing participant in this fraud on the court and the American people,” the pair added. “If the Senate needed an additional reason not to confirm Todd Blanche as attorney general, it just got it.”

After President Donald Trump singled him out for possible impeachment, a Republican lawmaker is officially going to war against Judge James Boasberg with a new bill inspired by GOP grievances against him, per a report from Bloomberg.

Boasberg is a Washington D.C., federal district judge appointed by former President Barack Obama, who first drew the ire of MAGA Republicans in 2025 when he ruled against Trump's attempt to use the Alien Enemies Act as a means to carry out his mass deportation agenda. Those same Republicans later accused him, with no evidence, that he had forced his way onto a case against the Trump administration for its use of the Signal messaging app for military communications, despite the court's repeated insistence that he had been randomly assigned to the case per its standard policy.

In light of his frequent rulings against the administration, Trump has called for Boasberg to be impeached, which prompted pushback from Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. Numerous other Republicans began to echo those calls, including Sen. Eric Schmitt, a Missouri Republican, who also this week unveiled a new proposed bill, the BOASBERG Act, that would target the unfounded allegations against the judge.

"A Republican senator has introduced legislation that would require random case assignment in federal district courts," Bloomberg's report explained, adding later, "If passed, Schmitt’s legislation would also require district courts to publicly share their practices when it comes to the assignment of civil cases, or to say why cases can’t be randomly assigned. Anyone who attempted to 'manipulate or evade the randomized case assignment system' would face penalties, according to the bill. District judges would also be removed from a case if the Supreme Court vacates, reverses, or stays their rulings. Appeals court judges would also lose their case assignments if the Supreme Court vacated or reversed a judgment that affirmed a lower court ruling."

The report continued: "Under the bill, federal appeals courts would also be subject to random assignment procedures when it comes to creating the three-judge panels that hear cases, and cases could only be reassigned in limited circumstances. Judges would also be randomly assigned when it comes to the rare three-judge courts stood up to weigh challenges to district maps. And both district and appeals courts would have to share statistics annually on judicial assignments and reassignments."

“The BOASBERG Act prevents Judges from forcing their way onto cases and is an important piece of court transparency legislation that will help restore the American people’s confidence in our judiciary,” Schmitt said in a statement about the new proposal.

Bloomberg also noted a segment of Schmitt's proposal, which said that it was not meant "to prevent district courts from assigning cases filed within a division to 1 or more judges." The outlet interpreted this as an effort not to target the practice of "judge shopping," wherein litigants find a way to file their suits in smaller districts where they are "all but guaranteed" to land a judge friendly to their cause, which conservatives have been accused of doing frequently in recent years.

As Democrats look increasingly likely to take over Congress after the 2026 midterm elections, some lawmakers are looking toward impeachment — but not necessarily for President Donald Trump.

MS NOW columnist Hayes Brown cautioned that Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought may be the most dangerous man in Trump’s administration, and he should get the first honor.

Brown argues that while Trump grabs the headlines, Vought "has spent the last year and a half willfully breaking the law." He is quietly carrying out a bigger power grab: ignoring Congress, slashing spending lawmakers already approved and turning the White House budget office into a weapon against the legislative branch.

Vought didn't have any role in the first administration, so he spent a lot of time outside the White House promoting his vision for a presidency with absolute power. The OMB director has his "hand in how practically every tiny bud on the executive branch operates. With the possible exception of deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller," characterized Brown.

One example is the Smithsonian museums. Trump proposed cutting its funding, Congress rejected the cut, then Vought allegedly moved to stop the institution from spending beyond the president’s demand. It's becoming part of a pattern of the administration restricting funding to agencies it doesn't have unilateral control over. It's against what the Supreme Court mandates for the roles of each branch of government.

Brown also explained that Vought's moves may violate the Impoundment Control Act and possibly even the Anti-Deficiency Act. Both can carry penalties.

“When a president delays, withholds or impounds funds to impose a cut proposed rejected by Congress, he is blatantly disregarding the appropriations laws: the funds appropriated for the salary of the Office of Management and Budget officials imposing those cuts is being spent in direct violation of that legal prohibition," said the the Anti-Deficiency Act.

One reason Vought is easier to go after is that he's not Trump and lacks the political shield from his MAGA base.

According to Brown, What Vought does have is a contempt for Congress and its authority.

Cerin Lindgrensavage, a counsel with Project Democrac, and David A. Super, a law professor at Georgetown Law penned an opinion essay for The Hill. The two explained: "Trump proposed cutting funds for the Smithsonian by more than $60 million. Congress rejected that cut and increased Smithsonian funding to account for inflation. Vought’s office then unlawfully forbade the Smithsonian from spending any money Congress appropriated beyond the president’s budget request[.]"

President Donald Trump is planning to hassle Congress to expunge his impeachments.

The president is trying to get Republican lawmakers to remove his impeachments from the record even though legally such a move is impossible, reported The Wall Street Journal’s Annie Linskey, Olivia Beavers and Natalie Andrews on Thursday.

“It should be done because I did nothing wrong,” Trump told the Journal. “It was a rigged deal—it was a whole rigged situation.”

The Journal noted that this could backfire, saying “Any move to attempt to erase the two impeachments, in 2019 and 2021, would open up a debate about Trump’s past behavior in office, forcing GOP lawmakers to relitigate charges of abuse of power, obstruction of Congress and inciting an insurrection. Facing the prospect of losing their majority in the House, Republicans are trying to shift focus to the economy and high costs, the issues that voters care about most.”

Yet even though “the measure likely wouldn’t be considered until after the November election,” the issue could still become a political lightning rod. “Trump has posted news clips about voiding the impeachments on his Truth Social account,” the Journal reported. “But this week, he played down his own role in the effort. ‘If they want to do it, I’m honored by it,’ the president said.”

The Journal added that House Speaker Mike Johnson (R—LA) has discussed the resolution with Trump. He has also discussed it with Harvard law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz

“I think it makes a lot of sense the more the evidence comes out, the more we know they really were sham impeachments,” Johnson told the Journal, later adding that “we were saying it at the time, now we know. And they make a very compelling case that it should be expunged from the record, because it was a hyperpartisan attack job.”

Speaking with this journalist for Salon in 2019, Dershowitz — who later defended Trump during one of his impeachment trials — denied that he would ever refuse to step down if he lost an election, which is what prompted the impeachment at which Dershowitz did not represent Trump.

“No president will refuse to step down if his opponent is elected in his place,” Dershowitz told Salon. “It just will not happen, and the American public would never tolerate it.”

Discussing the Wall Street Journal, CNN’s correspondents agreed that Trump’s attempt to scrub the impeachment is both purely symbolic and likely to resurrect the Ukraine coercion and election denying scandals that prompted those impeachments in the first place.

- YouTube youtu.be