“The Justice Department on Tuesday expanded the just-announced settlement of President Donald Trump’s lawsuit over the leaking of his tax returns to include a pledge that the IRS will no longer pursue any claims it may have against Trump, his family members and his companies over unpaid taxes. The nine-page settlement agreement DOJ released Monday, setting up a nearly $1.8 billion fund to compensate victims of alleged weaponization of law enforcement, did not mention any resolution of disputes over Trump’s tax returns, which he has repeatedly claimed were under protracted audits by the IRS. However, a one-page document posted on the DOJ website early Tuesday includes a sweeping release under which the IRS is “forever barred and precluded” from pursuing “examinations” of Trump, “related or affiliated individuals,” and related trusts and businesses.
“The waiver specifically encompasses “tax returns filed before the effective date” of the settlement, which was Monday. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche signed the addendum, dated Tuesday. It does not bear the signature of any representative of the IRS or any current Trump lawyers. Metadata attached to the document indicates it was prepared or scanned at 7:50 a.m. Tuesday.
Blanche did not sign the original settlement agreement, which was signed by Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, IRS CEO Frank Bisignano and Trump attorney Daniel Epstein. The Justice Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment on why the waiver wasn’t included in the agreement released Monday and why it isn’t signed by the same people.
“As is customary in settlements, both sides have executed waivers of a variety of claims that were or could have been brought,” the Justice Department said in a statement. “There would be little point in settling several significant claims if either party could simply turn around and seek to initiative more adverse claims that could have been pursued previously.” “This is only with respect to existing audits, not future,” the DOJ statement added.
John Koskinen, the former IRS commissioner from 2013 to 2017, said the expanded settlement set a “terrible precedent” that could effectively generate a windfall for Trump.“It makes you wonder what the President has to hide in those tax returns. He’s apparently been actively trading in the stock market and, since he knows a lot more about situations than the average investor, he’s probably generated significant taxable earnings,” he said in an emailed statement. “Not auditing his returns is the same as giving him an easy way to, in effect, receive money from the government.”
Danny Werfel, the former IRS commissioner from 2023 to 2025, said he was “unaware of a single precedent where the IRS has agreed in advance to permanently forgo examination of previously filed tax returns for a specific person or business.” Press reports in advance of the settlement indicated that a potential deal might include an agreement by the government to drop all audits of Trump-related returns and perhaps even to refrain from future audits.
Blanche spent more than two hours Tuesday testifying before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee. He faced numerous skeptical questions about the settlement and the related “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” but was not asked about the impact of the deal on Trump’s outstanding tax issues.
Following an announcement Tuesday on an antitrust prosecution, Woodward defended the settlement with Trump and the creation of the fund. “I already have the authority to settle any claim that is brought against the United States of America,” Woodward told reporters at DOJ headquarters. “I frankly think that we should be ecstatic about the idea that we’re going to inject more accountability into the process, as opposed to having just one person sign off on settlements.”
“I think that it’s way, way, way too early for us to rush to judgment on whether this was a good or a bad idea, to describe it as a slush fund, or really even to criticize it,” Woodward added.”
How can anyone defend any of this? A couple of brief points before I collect all of the skull and brain bits from around my office:
- That quote from Woodward at the end is amazing. We should be ecstatic that in response to an unwinnable lawsuit where the Justice Department handed over $1.8 billion for the President to use to reward anyone he decides has been mistreated by the IRS or another arm of the government?
- The statement is pure consequentialism. Woodward is saying that we should wait and see what happens. This is worse that Nancy Pelosi’s infamous “We have to pass the bill to see what’s in it.”
- How can a blanket ban on examinations of one particular family’s tax behavior be considered anything but anything but corrupt and an abuse of power by all involved, including the President.
- For Trump to allow this is, once again, giving his political foes a gift. In the middle of an unpopular war along with other sensitive issues and with a mid-terms fast approaching, I can only describe the deal as stupid, reckless, and indefensible.
It needs to be widely condemned and stopped.
Ethics Alarms 
Anyone else think this settlement would provide an actual legitimate grounds for impeachment unlike the ones from his previous term?
I do.
And this is where the lawfare against Trump has lead.
If the so-called Resistance (the Democrats and their allies in the news media, et al) had been reasonable in its opposition to Trump, had refrained from hyperbolic discourse, the weaponization of the DOJ and other government organizations, the petty attacks on him and his family, far more people today would recognize when he actually does or says something wrong.
As it is, I ignored the story for a couple of days as it was blowing up over social media since I assumed it was just more left-wing misrepresentation.
Which was completely reasonable on your part. It’s the Chicken Little phenomenon.
How does Trump effectively protect himself after he leaves office when his detractors will use the weight of government to destroy him when they have the chance. How many people in his orbit were bankrupted or coerced into pleas under threat of financial ruin for themselves and/or family members.
I liken this to demanding amnesty for illegals who will reward the elected person with votes. That too is an abuse of power. However, unless you have unimpeachable hard evidence that Blanche was coerced or threatened by Trump then I have a hard time accepting the claim of abuse of office. What Blanche does absent of coercion is more of an indictment of him not Trump.
Trump was the plaintiff and filed the suit prior to his election. Are we to demand that he not seek reparations because he was elected. What stops a future administration and its DOJ from using the full weight and unlimited resources of government to get him and his family once and for all. We know that Speaker Jeffries wants to break him and the spirit of his supporters when they get power.
I don’t think this deal looks good but it may be the only way to stop the weaponization of government against political adversaries. If anyone has a better solution to brings us back to a point that once a president leaves office and is not subject to continued persecution by the party in power I am willing to change my mind.
(1) I believe the part that removes the Trump family from IRS jurisdiction is the correct move. It is extreme, but the IRS has proven over and over again that it cannot treat conservatives fairly. This is the only way to prevent the IRS for being used as a partisan tool against them. I think this needs to be done more, when school districts discriminate against conservatives and when cities harass citizens who criticize them, for example. Extreme, yes, but this might get the system to change and it will protect the innocent.
(2) This is classic sue, then settle. It has been used for decades by Democratic groups, so why is it a problem now? Because it is Trump? Isn’t that partisan? These are the rules now.
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/sue-and-settle-tactics-that-circumvent-law-set-a-bad-precedent