President Donald Trump on Monday filed a notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice of his $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury Department in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

The case, filed in January, alleged that the IRS and Treasury failed to safeguard Trump’s confidential tax information from Charles Littlejohn, a former IRS contractor sentenced in 2024 to five years in prison for leaking the tax records of Trump and thousands of other wealthy Americans to the media.

Monday’s filing came two days before a deadline set by Judge Kathleen M. Williams, who had ordered the parties to justify why the case could proceed given concerns about whether the plaintiffs and defendants were sufficiently adverse, with Trump simultaneously serving as plaintiff and as the chief executive of the defendant agencies.

The dismissal followed reporting last week by ABC News that the US Department of Justice was finalizing a deal under which Trump would drop the IRS suit and $230 million in claims tied to the 2022 Mar-a-Lago search and the Russia investigation in exchange for the creation of a $1.776 billion “President Donald J. Trump Truth and Justice Commission.” According to the reporting, the commission would compensate individuals who claim they were harmed by what the Trump administration characterizes as the Biden-era “weaponization” of the federal government, potentially including Jan. 6 defendants.

The first four digits of the reported figure — 1776 — nod to the year of American independence, whose 250th anniversary Trump plans to mark this summer with elaborate pageantry.

Per ABC’s reporting, the fund would be drawn from the Treasury Department’s Judgment Fund — a permanent appropriation that does not require new congressional action — and would be administered by five commissioners, four appointed by the attorney general, all removable by the president without cause. The commission would be under no obligation to disclose its decision-making procedures. Trump himself would reportedly be barred from receiving direct payments tied to the three dropped claims, but entities associated with him would not be categorically excluded from filing claims.

In the immediate aftermath of Monday’s dismissal, nearly 100 House Democrats filed an amicus brief accusing Trump of “blatant self-dealing” and asking the court to scrutinize whether the dismissal was a maneuver to facilitate the settlement. “In this case, there is no distinction between Donald Trump as President and Donald Trump in his ‘personal capacity’ [as plaintiff]. Instead, the President has repeatedly claimed far-reaching Executive power and frequently sought to use that power to further his own personal interests. He cannot pretend that officials at the IRS and the Department of the Treasury — and their lawyers at the DOJ — operate independently from him for purposes of this case,” the brief reads.

Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, echoed these sentiments in a statement:

This is pure fraud and highway robbery. No one can be both plaintiff and defendant in the same case. And no president can concoct a fake case for $10 billion in damages against the government so he can be plaintiff and defendant and then ‘settle’ his bogus case against himself as a judge. This is simply not a genuine case or controversy as required by the Constitution. But Trump’s DOJ is not arguing any of this because it is in on the scam. This case is nothing but a racket designed to take $1.7 billion of taxpayer dollars out of the Treasury and pour it into a huge slush fund for Trump at DOJ to hand out to his private militia of insurrectionists, rioters, and white supremacists, including those who brutally beat police officers on January 6, 2021, and sycophant accomplices to his election stealing schemes.

Raskin urged the court to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction and to block any settlement deal.

Filed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), the voluntary dismissal is self-executing and divests the court of jurisdiction over the merits of the case, though courts retain ancillary authority to consider sanctions against counsel. The proposed compensation fund is not subject to court approval; a legal challenge to it would have to be brought as a separate action.