Congress Strikes Back as Trump Rushes $1.8 Billion Scam

Summary

Legal AF by MeidasTouch – May 18, 2026

Episode Title: Congress Strikes Back as Trump Rushes $1.8 Billion Scam
Hosts: Michael Popok (National Trial Lawyer), with Ben Meiselas & Karen Friedman Agnifilo

---

Overview

In this hard-hitting episode of Legal AF, Michael Popok breaks down a major legal controversy: a new congressional filing challenges an attempt by Donald Trump’s administration to secure a $1.776 billion “settlement” via a seemingly collusive lawsuit between Trump, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and the Department of Justice (DOJ). Ninety-three Democratic House members, led by Jamie Raskin, have intervened in federal court, arguing the maneuver is both a fraud on the judiciary and an unconstitutional “slush fund” for Trump’s benefit.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Background: The “Trump vs. Trump” Lawsuit

• Trump's Orchestration: Trump, who effectively controls the IRS and DOJ, filed suit against the IRS with the intention to settle and divert nearly $1.8 billion into a commission he would control.
• Judicial Skepticism: Judge Williams in Miami questioned the legitimacy of the suit, noting a lack of true adversaries—essentially “Trump versus Trump.” [00:15]
  • “The judge basically said, I don't see how there are adversarial parties here... one dominating over the other.” – Michael Popok [00:15]
• Attempted Dismissal: Trump’s counsel filed a voluntary dismissal, claiming the court no longer had jurisdiction.

2. Congress Responds: Amicus Brief from 93 House Democrats

• Amicus Filing: Led by Jamie Raskin and filed by Andre Rivero, the House Democrats’ brief urges Judge Williams not to let the court become “an instrument of fraud.” [00:15, 02:44]
  • “They’re asking that their amicus brief be accepted... the heart of the matter.” – Michael Popok [02:46]
• Key Legal Arguments:
  • Lack of DOJ Settlement Authority:
    • Judgment Fund Statute (31 U.S.C. § 1304): DOJ can’t compromise on settlements unless real adversarial litigation and legitimate obligations exist. Phony, dismissed, or collusive suits don’t meet these criteria.
    • Quote: “A feigned or collusive suit… is not actual or imminent litigation.” [04:45]
  • Emoluments Clause Violation:
    • Article II, Section 1, Clause 7: Prohibits the president from receiving any “emolument” (benefit, profit, gift) beyond salary. The settlement would benefit Trump and his allies, violating this clause. [06:52]
      • “This $1.7 billion slush fund creation gives him benefits, right to benefit his cronies, political benefits, other benefits, both monetary and non monetary that he is not entitled to and that violates the emolument clause.” [06:52]
  • Constitutional Oaths:
    • Congressional signatories stress their duty to defend the Constitution and oppose the executive’s attempt to end-run constitutional checks.

3. Wider Implications and Related Litigation

• “Slush Fund” as Emoluments Model:
  • The legal community anticipates further lawsuits using these arguments—both from “Democracy Defenders” and Miami residents fighting Trump’s acquisition of public land for a giant development project. [07:44]
    • “There's going to be a lawsuit... they'll argue that this is a violation of the emoluments clause. It will be the second one in a week.” [07:44]
  • Context: Miami Dade College transferred land worth its endowment, at no cost, to facilitate a Trump project—another possible emoluments violation.
• Call to Action for the Judiciary:
  • The judge is urged to hold a hearing on whether the government and court have been “had”—i.e., manipulated for corrupt ends.
  • Popok: “Should this lawsuit achieve plaintiff’s desired ends, it would result in the improper and unconstitutional transfer of taxpayer dollars into the pockets of the President, his family and his allies.” [09:08]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the sham case:

  • “Without a legitimate good faith lawsuit, Donald Trump has nothing to trade in consideration for the settlement and therefore he'd have to find another statute. Or, or he just be robbing the treasury of money to set up a slush fund that he controls...” – Michael Popok [01:18]

• On judicial responsibility:

  • “The federal judge has inherent authority to not be used to administer justice, to bring the lawyers... before her out in order to show cause to determine whether she’s been had or not. She should not be used this way...” – Michael Popok [02:46]

• On the constitutional stakes:

  • “They are interested in this case because they took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. The President is attempting to undermine the Constitution by bringing this collusive suit against the federal government...” – Citing the Amicus Brief [08:38]

---

Important Timestamps

• 00:15 – Michael Popok: Episode opens with summary of the scandal and the House members’ intervention.
• 02:44 – Breakdown of Trump’s attempted voluntary dismissal and the response by House Democrats.
• 04:45 – Analysis of the Judgment Fund Statute and legal barriers to the DOJ settling a phony lawsuit.
• 06:52 – Emoluments Clause argument and explanation of what constitutes an “emolument.”
• 07:44 – Preview of related lawsuits, particularly about the Miami Dade College land transfer for Trump’s project.
• 08:38 – 09:08 – Direct quotes from the congressional brief about constitutional oaths and potential harm of the settlement.

---

Tone and Takeaways

• Sharp, Analytical, and Urgent: The tone is passionate and uncompromising, conveying outrage at what is characterized as flagrant legal and constitutional manipulation.
• Legal Expertise: Michael Popok provides in-depth, statute-by-statute legal analysis, making the complex issues clear for non-lawyers.
• Forward-Looking: Promise to follow upcoming lawsuits and encourage public attention to unfolding legal challenges.

---

Conclusion

This episode of Legal AF offers a concise yet thorough analysis of a brewing constitutional confrontation between Congress and the Trump administration over an allegedly fraudulent court settlement. Listeners are left with a clear sense of the legal stakes, the party arguments, and the potential for further constitutional litigation as Congress and court observers alike push back against what they view as unprecedented executive overreach.

---

Transcript

[Monday.com Announcer]

This is a Monday.com ad, the same Monday.com designed for every team. The same Monday.com with built in AI scaling your work from day one. The same Monday.comwith an easy and intuitive setup. Go to Monday.com and try it for free.

[Michael Popok]

Corruption unparalleled. A fraud on the court, a fraud on the American people. That's in breaking news, a new filing by 93 members of the House, including and led by Jamie Raskin, Joe Nagusi and others, with a federal judge in Miami to convince her that she's been had. The federal court has been used as a pawn by Donald Trump in his phony manufactured suit against his own Internal Revenue Service and then attempts to use that suit to settle in a fraudulent way, something that his Department of Justice, which he also controls, does not have the power to settle because that power lies only with Congress. I'm Michael Popo. We got a fast moving docket down in Florida in the, in the Trump versus Internal Revenue Service, basically Trump versus Trump, where he controls the Internal Revenue Service, he controls the Department of Justice, all to set up this slush fund for himself for $1.776 billion. And now standing between that and it happening is one Judge Williams, who I know well in Miami at the moment, that we said coming off the weekend from Legal af, that Trump would try to avoid having to file the required jurisdictional brief with the judge because the judge basically said, I don't see how this, there are adversarial parties here. I see this as Trump versus Trump, in effect, one dominating over the other and required a brief or two from the IRS from Donald Trump. No, they've been working overtime internally at the Internal Revenue Service to try to settle the case. But how do you settle a phony case? That's always been the problem. I pointed that out on Legal AF for the last month. Without a legitimate good faith lawsuit, Donald Trump has nothing to trade in consideration for the settlement and therefore he'd have to find another statute. Or, or he just be robbing the treasury of money to set up a slush fund that he controls through a phony commission. And he's involved his own Department of Justice, which he also controls as a chief legal officer. And they're in on the conspiracy as well. That's the premise of the briefing by the 93 members of the House who are Democrats, led by Jamie Raskin and filed by a friend of mine as local counsel, Andre Rivero, from Rivero Mestre.

[Interviewer]

So

[Michael Popok]

let's get to these filings. Trump files first a notice of voluntary dismissal under Rule 41. He says he doesn't need the court's permission and she can't take any other action. I'm not so sure about that because if you fraudulently file in order to fraudulently settle, I think the federal judge has inherent authority to not be used to administer justice, to bring the lawyers like Alejandra Brito representing Donald Trump, the Department of justice, the Internal Revenue Service, the parties before her out in order to show cause to determine whether she's been had or not. See, she should not be used this way and there should be a hearing over it. And that's what the new motion filed by the 93 Democrats is asking her to do. They're asking that their amicus brief be accepted. And in their amicus brief, they say the following on pages 12 and 13 and 14. That's really the heart of the matter. They say there in section two. This is now the Democrats writing to Judge Williams. The DOJ lacks authority to settle the this collusive suit. Once establishing that the suit is collusive. If this court determines that this is a collusive suit, meaning there's no true adversarial parties here, they're all in cahoots, then that then the DOJ would lack authority, legal authority, to settle it on behalf of the defendant agencies or the United States for two reasons. First, they say there are particular statutes that are implicated and they don't apply nor give the power that Trump wants. There's the Judgment Fund Statute 31 U.S.C. 1304, which has specific constraints that foreclose a corrupt settlement. Particularly if it's a compromise settlement, which is what this would appear to be, then the Attorney General cannot compromise a settlement unless there is a legitimate obligation or liability or imminent litigation that he's settling. But if it's been withdrawn already and it's phony from the start, that it cannot be the basis of a compromise settlement. So the argument goes, they say on the on the bottom half of page 13, a feigned or collusive suit over which the court has no jurisdiction and one that has been voluntarily dismissed already on Monday, is not fact, is not actual or imminent litigation.

[IQ Bar Advertiser]

This episode is brought to you by iqbar, our exclusive snack hydration and coffee sponsor. IQ Bar Protein Bars IQ Mix Hydration Mixes IQ Joe Mushroom Coffees are the delicious low sugar brain and body fuel you need to win your day. The ultimate sampler pack. It's a great way to try all IQ Bar products and flavors. You get nine IQ Bars, eight IQ Mix Sticks and four IQ Joe Sticks. All IQ Bar products are clean, label, certified and entirely free from gluten, dairy, soy, GMOs and artificial ingredients. IQ Bars plant protein Bars are the smarter snack choice with plenty of plant protein, tons of fiber and no added Sugar. With over 20,000 5 star reviews and counting, more people than ever are fueling their busy lifestyles with IQ Bars, Brain and Body Boosting Bars, Hydration mixes and mushroom coffees. Their Ultimate Sampler Pack includes all three IQ Par has become part of my daily routine, whether it's starting my morning with IQ Joe or or grabbing an IQ Bar when I need a quick clean snack. And right now, IQ Bar is offering our special podcast listeners 20% off all IQ Bar products, including the ultimate sampler pack plus free shipping. To get your 20% off, text legal AF to 64,000 text legal AF to 64,000 that's legal AF to 64,000 message and data rates may apply to see terms for details.

[Michael Popok]

They then say, look, the second reason it can't be settled and it's a fraud is because it would violate the domestic emoluments clause of the Constitution, which applies to the president. Article 2, Section 1, Clause 7 says that other than his paycheck, that a president cannot receive any other emolument. When you hear emolument, think benefit, profit, gift, reward, anything of value from the United States or any of them other than his paycheck. And they're saying that this violates this $1.7 billion slush fund creation gives him benefits, right to benefit his cronies, political benefits, other benefits, both monetary and non monetary that he is not entitled to and that violates the emolument clause. This is going to be we're going to be reporting on the next wave of lawsuits. This will be the template for them. This was a brief, but there's going to be a lawsuit. The lawsuit's brought by maybe the very same people, Democracy Defenders and Norm Ison and Matt Plaque and former New Jersey Attorney General and others will be bringing suits and they'll argue that this is a violation of the emoluments clause. It will be the second one in a week. There's a case in Miami as well, brought by local residents in Miami against the Trump Library, Casino, Convention center, whatever it's supposed to be in Miami as also a violation because they got a $300 million piece of property for free, for free from Miami Dade College, whose entire endowment is the same value of what they gave up through Ron DeSantis in order for him to build a 50 story building. That's a violation of the Emoluments Clause, don't you think? And that case is in Miami as well, which we're following very, very closely. I like this filing and the way it is argued about the fraudulent and conspiratorial nature and improper purpose of all of it. They say at the top of their filing and it's very well researched. Here's how they start the amici Cure I are 93 members of the United States House of Representatives. They are interested in this case because they took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. The President is attempting to undermine the Constitution by bringing this collusive suit against the federal government contrary to the requirement that federal courts may only hear cases or controversies. The Department of Justice is entrusted with defending the United States against claims under these laws and ensuring that the statutory requirements are met before money is paid. However, the DoJ has colluded with President Trump and his allies and in doing so abdicated these responsibilities. Should this lawsuit achieve plaintiff's desired ends, it would result in the improper and unconstitutional transfer of taxpayer dollars into the pockets of the President, his family and his allies. Having taken oath to uphold the and defend the Constitution, the movements cannot stand by and let the Constitution's provisions go ignored. We agree. Glad you're here on Midas Touch on Legal af. I'm in Miami. I'm going to follow this case closely. I know the lawyer is involved. I'll try to get them on here to do some exclusive briefing of on Legal AF and the Midas Touch Network. So until my next report, I'm Michael Popak.

[Legal AF Promoter]

Can't get your fill of Legal af?

[Michael Popok]

Me neither.

[Legal AF Promoter]

That's why we formed the Legal AF substack. Every time we mention something in a hot take, whether it's a court filing or a oral argument, come over to the substack. You'll find the court filing and the oral argument there, including a daily roundup that I do called Wait for It Morning af. What else? All the other contributors from Legal AOFF are there as well. We got some new reporting, we got interviews, we got ad free versions versions of the podcast and hot takes where Legal AF on Substack come over now to free subscribe.

[Vrbo Advertiser]

A vacation rental should come with support, not surprises. That's why Vrbo comes with a Verbocare guarantee and 24.7life support from real people. So if something goes sideways, Verbocare can help if the host cancels verbo care

[Vrbo Advertiser (Secondary)]

if the listing says heated pool but there's actually no pool to heat.

[Vrbo Advertiser]

Definitely a verbo care thing.

[Vrbo Advertiser (Secondary)]

If my teenager starts calling me Leslie

[Vrbo Advertiser]

instead of mom, that's a family thing. Leslie.

[Interviewer]

That makes sense.

[Thrive Cosmetics Advertiser]

Sorry.

[Vrbo Advertiser]

Book with support, not surprises. Verbo Care and 247 Life Support. If you know you're Vrbo terms apply. See vrbo.com trust for details.

[Thrive Cosmetics Advertiser]

From lashes for days with the Viral Liquid Lash Extensions Mascara to awakening your eyes with lift and color from the brilliant eye brightener, Thrive Cosmetics is the go to when you want to amplify your everyday look. Plus, every product is 100% vegan, cruelty free and made with clean, skin loving ingredients that work with your skin. And for every product purchased, Thrive Cosmetics donates to help communities Thrive. So every time you use your favorite Thrive Cosmetics product, you're helping communities you care about too. Amplify your everyday go to thrivecosmetics.com shine26 for an exclusive offer of 20% off your first order. That's thrive Cosmetics. C A U S E M E t I c s.com shine26 Ryan Reynolds

[Mint Mobile Advertiser]

here from Mint Mobile with a message for everyone paying Big Wireless way too much. Please, for the love of everything good in this world, stop with Mint. You can get premium wireless for just $15 a month. Of course, if you enjoy overpaying. No judgments. But that's weird. Okay, one judgment anyway. Give it a [e-mail] Switch upfront payment

[Vrbo Advertiser (Secondary)]

of $45 for three month plan equivalent to $15 per month required Intro rate first three months only, then full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra. See full [e-mail].