President Donald Trump is dropping a lawsuit he had filed against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and instead devoting funds to victims of weaponized government agencies. The president had initially filed the lawsuit against the IRS in January, seeking $10 billion in damages after it was revealed that former IRS contractor Charles Littlejohn had illegally leaked nearly two decades’ worth of Trump’s tax returns to left-wing media outlets, in addition to leaking the private tax information of thousands of other Americans.

The IRS “had a duty to safeguard and protect Plaintiffs’ confidential tax returns and related tax return information from such unauthorized inspection and public disclosure,” Trump argued in the lawsuit. “Accordingly, Defendants were obligated to have appropriate technical, employee screening, security, and monitoring systems to prevent Littlejohn’s unlawful conduct. Defendants failed to take such mandatory precautions.”

The media outlets to whom Littlejohn provided Trump’s tax documents, including The New York Times and Pro-publica, subsequently accused the president of having committed “fraud” and “misconduct.” The IRS’s failure to prevent the leak, Trump argued in the lawsuit, has “caused Plaintiffs reputational and financial harm, public embarrassment, unfairly tarnished their business reputations, portrayed them in a false light, and negatively affected President Trump, and the other Plaintiffs’ public standing.”

Trump is also dropping two other claims for relief, one centered on the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI’s) 2022 raid on Trump’s Florida residence at Mar-a-Lago and one centered on former president Barack Obama’s weaponization of federal intelligence agencies to proliferate the Russian collusion hoax. The instances of lawfare and government weaponization in those complaints, Trump asserted, are “representative of the sustained use of the levers of government power by Democrat elected officials, political and career federal employees, contractors, and agents in order to target individuals, groups, and entities for improper and unlawful political, personal, and/or ideological reasons.” He continued, “Other well-known examples of Lawfare and Weaponization include the Biden Administration’s abuse of the FACE Act, the Biden Administration’s wrongful labeling of certain parents as domestic terrorists, and the IRS’s targeting of groups based on improper ideological criteria.”

On Monday, Trump agreed to settle the cases without receiving monetary damages. He will, however, receive a formal apology, as will other plaintiffs, including his sons Donald Trump, Jr. and Eric Trump. The settlement also stipulates the creation of a nearly-$2 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” to compensate those who have similarly been harmed by federal government weaponization. Trump’s claims were dismissed “with prejudice,” so that he cannot file lawsuits on the same issue again in the future.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) confirmed the creation of the Anti-Weaponization Fund in a press release Monday. “The machinery of government should never be weaponized against any American, and it is this Department’s intention to make right the wrongs that were previously done while ensuring this never happens again,” said Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche in a statement. “As part of this settlement, we are setting up a lawful process for victims of lawfare and weaponization to be heard and seek redress.”

The Anti-Weaponization Fund has been provided with $1.776 billion. Within the next 30 days, Blanche will establish a committee of five to manage the fund, review victims’ claims of weaponization, and agree on compensation, while the Attorney General maintains the authority to audit the fund at any time. Reports will be sent to the DOJ on a quarterly basis detailing claims and compensation.

The Biden administration intentionally weaponized the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act to aggressively prosecute pro-life Americans, illegally targeted and spied on traditionalist Catholics, labeled parents opposed to transgender school policies as domestic terrorists, unjustly investigated Christian non-profits, fined Christian universities excessive sums, repeatedly pressured major social media outlets to censor conservative figures and publications, and arrested more than 1,000 January 6 protestors, including those who were involved in peaceful protest. While the FBI and Secret Service estimated that roughly 1,200 people entered the U.S. Capitol Building on January 6, 2021, nearly 1,600 arrests were made.

Although Congress will have an opportunity to recommend and approve at least one commissioner of the fund, both Republicans and Democrats have already questioned the necessity of compensating Americans who were unjustly or illegally targeted by the Biden administration. According to Politico Senate reporter Jordain Casey, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said that he is “not a big fan” of the Anti-Weaponization Fund and does not “see a purpose for that.” He also suggested that Congress is likely to scrutinize the fund “based on some of the blowback that’s come since this was announced…”

Democrats in particular have been quick to question the purpose and mechanisms of the fund. In a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday, Democrats grilled Blanche on the Anti-Weaponization Fund. “Has it ever happened that a sitting president sued his own government for $10 billion and then directed the settlement of the case and the establishment of a payout fund?” Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) asked, pressing Blanche to commit that none of the money in the fund would be paid to Trump, his family, or his campaign donors. Focusing on the January 6 protests, Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) asked if “individuals who assaulted Capitol Police officers be eligible” to receive payments under the fund. Blanche emphasized that any American is eligible to apply for compensation under the fund, but that it will be up to the fund’s commissioners to determine who actually receives compensation.

In his memo announcing the establishment of the Anti-Weaponization Fund, Blanche noted that the creation of such funds is not “unprecedented,” as many Democrats subsequently claimed. Instead, Blanche pointed to the case of Keepseagle v. Vilsack under the Obama administration, in which a federal fund was established to provide compensation to alleged victims of racism. Blanche sparred with Van Hollen Tuesday over the significance of differences between the Keepseagle fund and the Anti-Weaponization Fund. “You compared this to the Keepseagle case, but I think you know full well that in that case, the settlement agreement was approved by a federal judge, including the payments to people who were not originally parties to the lawsuit,” Van Hollen said, adding, “So that’s a big difference between this case and the case that you compared it to.”

“No, it’s not,” Blanche retorted. “Your question was whether it’s a big difference. It’s not.” When Van Hollen insisted that a federal judge’s approval of the Keepseagle settlement meant that the fund would be operated in an “independent,” as opposed to a partisan manner, Blanche noted that the Keepseagle fund had one commissioner and that the judge “had nothing to do with deciding” who was compensated. “So you’re not going to submit this proposal to any federal judge or … any independent authority?” asked Van Hollen. “There is no judge,” Blanche responded, exasperated. He noted that Judge Kathleen Williams of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, where Trump initially brought the lawsuit, had already dismissed the case. “What do you mean ‘an independent authority?’” the acting attorney general asked, rejecting Van Hollen’s assertions that he was incapable of serving as the head of the DOJ due to his previous role as Trump’s personal lawyer.

“This is unusual, that is true, but it is not unprecedented,” Blanche said in defense of the Anti-Weaponization Fund. “It was done to address something that had never happened [before] again either,” he continued, noting that the fund was established “in response to years and years of weaponization, just to correct a few things… It’s not limited to Republicans, it’s not limited to the Biden weaponization, it’s not limited to — in any way, scope, or form — January 6 or to Jack Smith. There’s no limitation on the claims.”