Bennet Leads Subcommittee on Taxation and IRS Oversight Letter Demanding Answers on Agreement Shielding Trump, Family From IRS Audits

Jun 3, 2026 | Press Releases

Demands preservation of all related records, documents, and communications; notes potential violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7217 and 7122

Washington, D.C. - Colorado U.S. Senator Michael Bennet, Ranking Member of the Finance Committee's Subcommittee on Taxation and IRS Oversight, led Democratic members of the Subcommittee in a letter to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Chief Executive Officer Frank Bisignano demanding answers on the settlement addendum reached with President Trump that prevents the Department of Justice from bringing any action or pursuing any tax audit into previous returns filed by Trump, his family members, or affiliated companies.

This week, Acting Attorney General Todd Blance confirmed that this addendum remained in effect - an unprecedented agreement that appears to violate the law and longstanding policy. The letter was joined by Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee Ron Wyden (D-OR).

In addition to Bennet and Wyden, Senators Mark R. Warner (D-VA), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Bernard Sanders (D-VT), Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), and Raphael G. Warnock (D-GA) signed the letter.

"We write to request urgent clarification from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regarding the recently released addendum settlement that precludes the Department of Justice (DOJ) from bringing any action or pursuing any tax audit into previous returns filed by Donald J. Trump, his relatives, or affiliated companies. This settlement is not only unprecedented, but also appears to violate the law and decades of policy prohibiting the White House from intervening in IRS audit decisions. This administration owes the American people a complete and transparent accounting of how this addendum settlement was ultimately conceived and approved," said the lawmakers.

"The terms of this addendum are shocking and require immediate explanation. Not only will taxpayers now be forced to pay monetary damages to an unclear set of individuals claiming unenumerated harms as part of the 'Fund,' but President Trump has appeared to shield himself, his relatives, and other affiliated interests from IRS audits into past tax returns - a grant of retrospective immunity that has never been offered to any individual in the history of the Internal Revenue Service," continued the lawmakers.

The lawmakers asked for answers regarding the conclusions reached by career civil servants, who reviewed the deal, if there was anything unusual about the deal, and what role politically-appointed staff had in the making of the deal between the IRS and President Trump.

"While acting Attorney General Blanche has stipulated that neither Trump nor his family members will receive rewards from the 'Anti-Weaponization Fund,' a favorable resolution of pending audits and the limitation of future ones for past returns may prove especially lucrative. Reporting from 2024 suggested that a loss in a then-active IRS audit could cost President Trump more than $100 million. It remains unclear whether that examination has closed, or whether there are any other pending audits of President Trump, his family members or affiliated entities. The American people deserve immediate information explaining how this addendum agreement was conceived, drafted, and approved," concluded the lawmakers.

The text of the letter is available HERE and below.

Secretary Bessent and Mr. Bisignano:

We write to request urgent clarification from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regarding the recently released addendum settlement that precludes the Department of Justice (DOJ) from bringing any action or pursuing any tax audit into previous returns filed by Donald J. Trump, his relatives, or affiliated companies. This settlement is not only unprecedented, but also appears to violate the law and decades of policy prohibiting the White House from intervening in IRS audit decisions. This administration owes the American people a complete and transparent accounting of how this addendum settlement was ultimately conceived and approved. We urge you to preserve all records, documents, and communications - including email, text message, or other messaging applications (e.g. iMessage, Signal) - held by the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) related to this addendum settlement, including any communications with the White House.

On May 18, the DOJ announced the creation of an "Anti-Weaponization Fund" to compensate individuals who have been the self-described victims of undefined government activity. This "Fund" - which is ultimately to receive a $1.776 billion deposit from the Treasury's General Fund - is one part of a broader settlement the Federal government reached with President Trump in his capacity as a private citizen, though is currently paused subject to court proceedings. Immediately following its release, Treasury General Counsel Brian Morrissey resigned without explanation.

On May 19, the DOJ released an addendum to the settlement stipulating that the IRS is "forever barred and precluded" from pursuing "examinations" of President Trump, "related or affiliated individuals," and related trusts and businesses. This sweeping declaration of prosecutorial forbearance prohibits "any and all claims…whether presently known or unknown…[that] have been or could have been" asserted. Unlike the larger settlement released Monday, which was signed by Mr. Bisignano, Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, and Trump attorney Daniel Epstein, the addendum one-page document was signed solely by acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. Metadata attached to the document indicates it was prepared or scanned at 7:50 a.m. Tuesday.

The terms of this addendum are shocking and require immediate explanation. Not only will taxpayers now be forced to pay monetary damages to an unclear set of individuals claiming unenumerated harms as part of the "Fund," but President Trump has appeared to shield himself, his relatives, and other affiliated interests from IRS audits into past tax returns - a grant of retrospective immunity that has never been offered to any individual in the history of the Internal Revenue Service.

Furthermore, the creation of this addendum may expose a number of individuals to criminal liability. The legal framework governing presidential interference in IRS audit decisions is clear and longstanding. Under 26 U.S.C. § 7217(a), it is "unlawful for any applicable person to request, directly or indirectly, any officer or employee of the Internal Revenue Service to conduct or terminate an audit or other investigation of any particular taxpayer with respect to the tax liability of such taxpayer." This prohibition is explicitly extended to the President and Vice President, as well as individuals serving at Level I of the Executive Schedule - such as the Secretary of the Treasury and the Commissioner of Social Security. It also requires IRS officers and officials who receive such requests to report them to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA). Failure to do so may subject those officers to criminal prosecution.

Although § 7217 permits the Attorney General to make a request with respect to an IRS audit, § 7122 only grants him authority to compromise a tax dispute after it is referred to DOJ by the IRS for prosecution or defense. It remains unclear whether Mr. Bisignano, or any other IRS employee, made any referrals to DOJ concerning Trump audits. Moreover, terminating an audit of the President would violate longstanding IRS policy to audit all of the President's returns, and would be indefensible in the context of a settlement agreement reached with President Trump, given the law's prohibition on presidential requests made either "directly or indirectly." A settlement agreement between the Federal government and the President that intervenes in IRS audit action appears to violate the law on its face.

While acting Attorney General Blanche has stipulated that neither Trump nor his family members will receive rewards from the "Anti-Weaponization Fund," a favorable resolution of pending audits and the limitation of future ones for past returns may prove especially lucrative. Reporting from 2024 suggested that a loss in a then-active IRS audit could cost President Trump more than $100 million. It remains unclear whether that examination has closed, or whether there are any other pending audits of President Trump, his family members or affiliated entities.

The American people deserve immediate information explaining how this addendum agreement was conceived, drafted, and approved. In addition to preserving all relevant documents, records, and communications, including both hard copies and electronically-stored information, We demand answers to the following questions by June 12, 2026:

1. What were the conclusions reached by career civil servants in the IRS Office of Chief Counsel regarding the merits of President Trump's lawsuit?
   1. Please provide a copy of the 25-page IRS memorandum as prepared by the IRS Office of Chief Counsel.
2. Who within the IRS and the Treasury reviewed the IRS memorandum regarding President Trump's lawsuit?
3. Were there any internal memoranda or briefs, whether drafts or final, prepared regarding the applicability of 26 U.S.C. § 7217 or 7122 to the addendum agreement of May 19?
   1. If so, which staff attorneys worked on those memoranda or briefs? Were any of them submitted for final approval?
   2. If not, did the Treasury and IRS consider the implications of 26 U.S.C. § 7217 or 7122?
   3. Did any IRS employee refer any of the Trump family's audit disputes to the DOJ for prosecution or defense?
      1. If so, who?
      2. If not, under what authority did DOJ attempt to settle those disputes?
4. Has either the IRS or the Treasury issued staff advisories enumerating IRS employees' responsibilities under the provisions of 26 U.S.C. § 7217, and the potential penalties for noncompliance?
5. Were there any other internal memoranda or briefs, whether drafts or final, prepared in connection with the addendum agreement of May 19?
   1. If so, please provide them.
6. What role did former Treasury General Counsel Brian Morrissey have in reviewing, directing, approving, or otherwise participating in either the settlement agreement of May 18 or the addendum agreement of May 19?
   1. What role did the Treasury's Office of General Counsel have generally?
   2. What role did the IRS Office of Chief Counsel have generally?
7. What role did Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent have in reviewing, directing, approving, or otherwise participating in either the settlement agreement of May 18 or the addendum agreement of May 19?
8. What role did IRS CEO and Commissioner of Social Security Frank Bisignano have in reviewing, directing, approving, or otherwise participating in either the settlement agreement of May 18 or the addendum agreement of May 19?

We appreciate your attention to this matter, and look forward to full and accurate statements in response to the questions above.

###