DOJ addendum – A supplementary document signed by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche would “forever” bar the Department of Justice from allowing any IRS claim, enforcement action, or audit against Donald Trump, his sons Eric and Don Jr., and the Trump Organization tied to
By the time the addendum appeared on the Department of Justice website, the promise it carried sounded final. A new supplementary document—signed by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and posted Tuesday—would “forever” prohibit the United States from seeking any claim or initiating any IRS enforcement action or audit against Donald Trump. his sons Eric and Don Jr. and the Trump Organization based on any previous filings.
The move landed as the Justice Department simultaneously rolled out terms for a $1.8 billion restitution fund. described as part of a settlement. aimed at compensating supposed victims of what it called the agency’s “weaponization.” The fund. critics say. is tied to Trump’s allies and includes the people charged in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol, when rioters ransacked the building and attacked police officers on Trump’s behalf.
But in court, the legal footing has been contested from the start. Judge Kathleen Williams’ order on Monday dismissing the case of Trump v. IRS emphasized that there was no legal settlement in that case—an argument that underpins the backlash over the DOJ’s characterization of the arrangement.
“Having the IRS agree to no audits of the President. his family and their businesses is unheard of. ” Donald Sherman. president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). told me on Friday. Sherman called Trump’s underlying $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS “a stunningly corrupt attempt for the president to take taxpayer money and put it in his pocket.”.
On Monday, the reaction sharpened. Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon called the latest step “another heinously corrupt act by the most corrupt administration in history” and said it is a “clear violation of the law that prohibits interference by executive branch officials in IRS audits.” Wyden also vowed that Democrats would fight “every element” of the deal. even as he warned future administrations and IRS leadership to treat the directive as “completely invalid” if Congress does not act.
Acting Attorney General Blanche’s addendum. critics argue. would prevent the IRS from pursuing Trump—who. as the complaints note. has been found guilty or liable in several civil and criminal fraud cases. and whose company. the Trump Organization. was found guilty of criminal tax fraud and falsifying business records—unless Congress steps in.
The tension is not just political. It is technical, rooted in what the IRS is supposed to do when it decides what to examine.
After a New York Times report last week said the administration was considering a ban on Trump audits. I reached out to John Koskinen. who served as IRS chief under President Barack Obama. In earlier reporting, I quoted him. Now, with the administration having “pulled the trigger,” Koskinen’s full response has been making the rounds:.
“As far as I can tell from my experience. the possible settlement of the President’s $10 billion suit against the IRS by having the IRS agree to no audits of the President. his family and their businesses is unheard of. I don’t recall the IRS ever promising a taxpayer that there would be no audits. Audits get settled all the time. but promising no audits simply raises the question of what someone is worried about or trying to hide. This is especially troubling when. as the President acknowledges. the Department of Justice. representing the IRS in the case. works for the President.”.
Koskinen added that audits are expensive for taxpayers in complicated cases. but that the IRS tries to make sure selection is tied to “reasonable concern that the appropriate taxes have not been paid.” He described how the agency tracks “no change” audits to adjust its algorithmic targeting. arguing that an assurance of “no audits” for a taxpayer or group would set a “notable precedent.”.
“That unfortunate precedent has now been set,” Koskinen said.
Public Citizen’s co-presidents made their own case, arguing the “dirty deal” has crossed into illegality. The group points to a federal law that bars presidential requests to terminate audits made “directly or indirectly. ” and requires IRS officers and officials who receive such requests to report them to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration—adding that failure to comply could expose those officials to criminal prosecution.
Democrats see the administration’s posture as more than questionable. Wyden said his party would press the fight in Congress. Sen. Elizabeth Warren. meanwhile. wrote on X that the Trump immunity agreement represents an “unprecedented level of corruption. ” asking. “What is Trump hiding from the American people?” and saying “Congress must step up and stop this corruption.”.
Republicans have not all lined up behind the move, either. Before the IRS news broke. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said he was “not a big fan” of the restitution fund. Sens. Susan Collins of Maine. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. Jerry Moran of Kansas. and even Lindsey Graham of South Carolina questioned it.
Recently defeated Sen. Bill Cassidy pushed back on the idea of making a deal without a legal basis. telling reporters on Monday. “We are a nation of laws; you can’t just make up things.” He added that after he had “just came off the campaign trail. ” he found that people were concerned with “making their own ends meet. ” not with “putting the slush fund together without a legal precedent.”.
The addendum’s biggest phrase—“forever”—now sits at the center of the dispute: whether it can be enforced, and whether it conflicts with federal rules meant to keep the IRS from being pulled into political negotiation.
Democrats say the answer should be no. Whether Congress can move quickly enough—and whether the courts will treat the DOJ’s description of a “settlement” as more than political language—remains the immediate question facing the IRS and the Justice Department as the controversy spreads.
Donald Trump IRS audits Todd Blanche Department of Justice Trump v. IRS Kathleen Williams restitution fund Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington CREW John Koskinen Ron Wyden Elizabeth Warren Public Citizen Jan. 6 tax enforcement
So DOJ just said no more IRS audits forever? That’s insane.
I don’t even get it, like is this about restitution or audits? The headline makes it sound like they’re protecting him from the IRS but then it’s also a $1.8B fund for supposed victims which feels like a whole different story.
If they can’t do IRS enforcement forever then what about state taxes? Cuz the IRS isn’t the only thing, right? Also “weaponization” is just politics language, I’m not buying it. Half the time these settlements are just payoffs and nobody actually gets audited anyway.
I swear this is why people don’t trust the government. They say “forever bar” and then turn around and talk about compensating victims and even mention Jan 6 people?? Like are the Jan 6 guys getting paid through this fund or am I reading it wrong? Either way sounds like Trump always wins, and Todd Blanche signing it doesn’t surprise me.