reported<\/a>, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche approved the broad addendum \u2014 a move that appears aimed at ending Trump\u2019s long-running conflicts with the IRS.<\/p>\n\n\n\nBut questions surrounding the agreement have quickly followed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The document reportedly does not include signatures from any IRS official or any attorney currently representing Trump. Metadata embedded in the file indicates it was created or scanned at roughly 7:50 a.m. Tuesday.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Blanche also was not among the officials who signed the original settlement agreement, which instead included signatures from Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, IRS CEO Frank Bisignano, and Trump attorney Daniel Epstein.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Justice Department did not immediately explain why the new waiver language was absent from the agreement publicly released earlier or why different signatories appear on the updated document.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Former IRS officials are warning the arrangement could establish a major precedent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
John Koskinen, IRS commissioner from 2013 through 2017, argued that exempting a sitting president from future scrutiny raises significant concerns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cIt makes you wonder what the President has to hide in those tax returns,\u201d Koskinen said in a statement. \u201cNot auditing his returns is the same as giving him an easy way to, in effect, receive money from the government.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Danny Werfel, who served as IRS commissioner from 2023 to 2025, said he was unaware of any precedent in which the IRS had \u201cagreed in advance to permanently forgo examination of previously filed tax returns for a specific person or business.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Critics say the controversy extends beyond tax policy itself. Because Trump reached the agreement while leading the executive branch, opponents argue he was effectively negotiating with agencies operating under his own administration \u2014 a dynamic they say creates an extraordinary appearance of conflict.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Some opponents have also described the new Anti-Weaponization Fund as a taxpayer-funded \u201cslush fund\u201d that could disproportionately benefit Trump allies and politically connected figures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The administration has defended the settlement as a lawful response to improper disclosures of confidential taxpayer information and broader allegations that federal agencies had been politically weaponized. Legal analysts, however, continue debating whether portions of the agreement \u2014 particularly the reported audit restrictions \u2014 could face future constitutional or legal challenges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n