DOJ barred IRS from ever auditing Trump, and it also extends to his family, company and ‘related companies’

The Justice Department has officially barred the IRS from ever auditing the tax returns of President Donald Trump, his family, his company, and any related entities for all filings made before this week, The Guardian reported. This massive shift in policy was finalized through an addendum quietly posted on the department website. This move comes immediately after the government announced a controversial $1.776 billion fund designed to compensate allies of the president for what has been described as the weaponization of law enforcement.

It is honestly hard to overstate how significant this is for the relationship between the executive branch and the nation’s tax collectors. The addendum explicitly states that the government is forever barred and precluded from examining the tax returns in question. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche signed this document on Tuesday, which was prepared or scanned at 7:50 AM. Interestingly, this new page does not feature the signatures of any IRS representatives or any of the president’s own legal team, which is quite a departure from the original nine-page settlement agreement signed on Monday.

The original settlement, which was signed by Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, IRS CEO Frank Bisignano, and attorney Daniel Epstein, did not include this specific waiver. When you look at the sequence of events, it is clear that the scope of this deal has expanded rapidly. The Justice Department has characterized this as a standard part of settlement proceedings, stating that both sides have executed waivers of claims that could have been brought. They have further clarified that this waiver only applies to existing audits and not to future tax filings.

Even with that clarification, industry experts are raising serious concerns about the implications

Former IRS commissioner John Koskinen, who served from 2013 to 2017, noted that this sets a terrible precedent. He pointed out that it essentially functions as a way to provide a windfall for the president, noting that it makes you wonder what the president has to hide in those tax returns. Given that the president has been actively trading in the stock market, Koskinen suggested that not auditing these returns is effectively the same as giving him an easy way to receive money from the government.

Danny Werfel, who served as IRS commissioner from 2023 to 2025, added that he is unaware of any precedent where the IRS has agreed in advance to permanently forgo the examination of previously filed tax returns for a specific person or business. This is a significant feature of the settlement that seems to have caught many observers off guard. The original lawsuit, which the president is dropping in exchange for this fund, was valued at $10 billion. Reports indicated that IRS officials actually recommended fighting the lawsuit, but the agency decided to settle it regardless.

The fund itself is raising just as many questions as the audit waiver. It will be managed by five individuals who can be fired at will by the president. During a Senate hearing on Tuesday, Blanche faced intense scrutiny from lawmakers. Senator Chris van Hollen of Maryland did not hold back, calling it an outrageous, unprecedented slush fund. When pressed on whether individuals convicted of assaulting police officers on January 6 could potentially claim money from this fund, Blanche admitted there were no limitations on who could seek a claim.

While Blanche insisted that the president and his sons would not receive compensation, the language of the agreement leaves some ambiguity regarding whether they could technically file a claim. Regarding the transparency of the fund, Blanche claimed there would be accountability. He stated that the commission must produce quarterly confidential reports to the attorney general, which he expects to be made public. He also pointed to the Freedom of Information Act process as a way to ensure the public eventually learns the basis and amount of the awards.

Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward has defended the broader settlement, telling reporters that he believes the public should be ecstatic about the idea of injecting more accountability into the process. He pushed back against the characterization of the program as a slush fund, suggesting it is far too early to rush to judgment. When pressed by the media about the specific addendum ending all pending tax audits, Woodward did not provide a comment.