{"id":148,"date":"2026-06-04T10:36:23","date_gmt":"2026-06-04T10:36:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/homemovechronicle.com\/?p=148"},"modified":"2026-06-04T10:36:23","modified_gmt":"2026-06-04T10:36:23","slug":"the-fight-over-trumps-sweetheart-irs-deal-is-not-at-all-over","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/homemovechronicle.com\/?p=148","title":{"rendered":"The Fight Over Trump\u2019s Sweetheart IRS Deal Is Not at All Over"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

This is <\/em>Executive Dysfunction<\/em>, a newsletter that highlights one under-the-radar story about how Trump is changing the law\u2014or how the law is pushing back\u2014and keeps you posted on the latest from Slate\u2019s Jurisprudence team. <\/em>Click here<\/em> to receive it in your inbox each week.<\/em><\/p>\n

Read more How to Get Neil Gorsuch to Stand Up For Workers<\/a><\/p>\n

President Donald Trump\u2019s $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over a leaked tax-return scandal from six years ago was on the verge of an epic settlement. In exchange for Trump dropping his suit, the federal government agreed to never pursue tax enforcement against the president, his family, and their businesses over past tax returns and<\/em> agreed to establish a $1.7 billion \u201canti-weaponization fund\u201d for anyone prosecuted by prior administrations, with Jan. 6 insurrectionists set to be the major beneficiaries. The agreement was short-lived, however, as even an obedient GOP could not swallow such an audacious sweetheart deal. Now a suspicious judiciary is coming after Trump for even conceiving of an arrangement that reeks of such bad faith.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe are not moving forward with the fund. Period,\u201d acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told lawmakers during a committee hearing on Tuesday. That statement put an end (sort of) to the fund that would have used taxpayer dollars to pay out Trump allies and perhaps, indirectly, Trump himself, for any perceived grievances, mostly against the Biden administration. Disgraced former Republican Rep. George Santos and a plethora of inner-circle associates and pardoned convicted criminals were already strategizing a way to apply for the fund. But two weeks ago, Senate Republicans held a meeting with Blanche where things turned contentious, with senators yelling at the attorney general about how the fund \u201cfeels like Trump cut a deal with himself.\u201d Sen. Mitch McConnell didn\u2019t attend the meeting but told CBS News, \u201cSo, the nation\u2019s top law enforcement official is asking for a slush fund to pay people who assault cops? Utterly stupid, morally wrong\u2014take your pick.\u201d<\/p>\n

Technically, when Blanche promised lawmakers the anti-weaponization fund would not be moving forward, he was not under oath. When Democratic Rep. Grace Meng pressed Blanche on this, he would not commit to putting anything into writing. And during that same hearing, Blanche confirmed that the part of the settlement agreement that \u201cFOREVER BARRED\u201d the federal government from pursuing tax enforcement against Trump, his family, and their businesses over any past tax returns remains in place. This is an enormous windfall for Trump, as his businesses have landed multimillion-dollar deals from crypto ventures and his sons have signed equally lucrative licensing and management deals since he retook the White House last year. All in all, Forbes estimated that the Trumps could save over $600 million with a tax immunity deal.<\/p>\n

The slush fund appears dead, at least for now, as Blanche chose to prioritize Trump\u2019s own personal interests over those of the hundreds of people whom the president inspired to commit violent crimes at the Capitol. Things began to fall apart last week when U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema issued a banning the fund. The Justice Department said it disagreed with the ruling but would honor it at least until June 12, when a hearing is scheduled for Brinkema to make a final decision. The judge\u2019s action was prompted after a former DOJ prosecutor and other plaintiffs who said they were targeted by the Trump-Vance administration over the legality of the fund. At this point, it\u2019s unclear what the DOJ will argue before Judge Brinkema, but the indication is that it will drop its arguments in favor of the slush fund.<\/p>\n

That is not the only legal challenge, though, as one day after Brinkema\u2019s order, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams reopened Trump\u2019s IRS lawsuit, an exceedingly uncommon practice, under a federal procedure rule that allows a judge to rule on the legitimacy of a legal challenge to assess \u201cwhether an attorney has abused the judicial process.\u201d Williams\u2019 decision came after 35 former federal judges from across the political spectrum submitted a motion to the judge that argued Trump and the DOJ voluntarily settled the president\u2019s lawsuit \u201csolely to avoid judicial scrutiny of a lawsuit that \u2018was collusive from the start\u2019 and was only filed to provide the imprimatur of legality for an unlawful settlement.\u201d<\/p>\n

When Williams was first assigned Trump\u2019s IRS lawsuit, she expressed concerns about how the president was essentially on both sides of the case, as the U.S. president also controls who leads the Justice Department, and how this dynamic could be collusive. In order to assess whether Trump\u2019s lawsuit was valid, she ordered his personal attorneys and the DOJ to provide written explanations to the court detailing whether they were in conflict with each other. Days before having to submit to Williams, news that the IRS was considering settling with Trump came to light, and soon enough the DOJ formally announced the settlement, which included establishing the anti-weaponization fund. This solved two critical problems for Blanche: His boss gets to claim victory while the acting attorney general can legally evade judicial accountability. With a settlement in place, Williams seemed to lose control over the legal dispute\u2014until this week, when she used the clever procedural maneuver to reopen the case.<\/p>\n

Williams is attempting to call Blanche\u2019s bluff by reopening Trump\u2019s IRS lawsuit, which will require the DOJ to certify that everything it filed in that case served a legitimate purpose, and was not solely to produce a rigged settlement to benefit Trump. As former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman smartly pointed out, Williams also flagged that the tax amnesty granted to Trump as part of the settlement was signed with the seal of the DOJ by Blanche alone, and not anybody actually responsible for tax enforcement at the IRS. By June 12, the same day the DOJ is due in Brinkema\u2019s court, Blanche and Trump\u2019s attorneys need to provide answers to Williams on three major questions: Did Trump and Blanche collude, and are they genuinely adverse parties? Was Trump\u2019s lawsuit dismissed on a deceptive premise? And was the U.S. judiciary \u201cthe victim of a fraud\u201d?<\/p>\n

Whatever happens next in the case will have major ramifications not just for Trump and his family, but for the rule of law in this country.<\/p>\n

The judiciary is not the only player trying to pin down the Trump administration, though. Democrats are planning to force votes in Congress to nullify the president\u2019s IRS immunity, which is likely illegal, as federal law bans presidents from interfering in the tax audit process. Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin told the New Republic that his party will strengthen the existing law and expand it to include other governmental investigations\u2014if they win the House in the upcoming midterm elections.<\/p>\n

We hope you learned a thing or two from this edition of Executive Dysfunction, and if you enjoyed reading it, please consider <\/em>supporting our legal journalism by becoming a Slate Plus member<\/em>!<\/em><\/p>\n

Read more Sonia Sotomayor Bluntly Exposed the Supreme Court\u2019s Latest Voting Rights Lie<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

Elsewhere in Jurisprudence<\/p>\n<\/h3>\n