President Donald Trump’s controversial settlement with the IRS is drawing mounting criticism after reports revealed the agreement may shield Trump, his family, and affiliated business entities from certain future tax scrutiny while dramatically expanding the administration’s new “Anti-Weaponization Fund.”

According to multiple reports, the Justice Department quietly added language to the deal that would permanently bar the IRS from pursuing certain examinations involving Trump family tax filings submitted before the agreement was finalized. The protections reportedly extend beyond Trump himself to related family members, trusts, businesses, and affiliated entities.

The additional language surfaced after Trump agreed to withdraw his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS over the disclosure of his tax returns. In return, the administration established an approximately $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” designed to compensate people who claim they were targeted through politically motivated government actions.

As Politico reported, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche approved the broad addendum — a move that appears aimed at ending Trump’s long-running conflicts with the IRS.

But questions surrounding the agreement have quickly followed.

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.

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.

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.

Former IRS officials are warning the arrangement could establish a major precedent.

John Koskinen, IRS commissioner from 2013 through 2017, argued that exempting a sitting president from future scrutiny raises significant concerns.

“It makes you wonder what the President has to hide in those tax returns,” Koskinen said in a statement. “Not auditing his returns is the same as giving him an easy way to, in effect, receive money from the government.”

Danny Werfel, who served as IRS commissioner from 2023 to 2025, said he was unaware of any precedent in which the IRS had “agreed in advance to permanently forgo examination of previously filed tax returns for a specific person or business.”

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 — a dynamic they say creates an extraordinary appearance of conflict.

Some opponents have also described the new Anti-Weaponization Fund as a taxpayer-funded “slush fund” that could disproportionately benefit Trump allies and politically connected figures.

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 — particularly the reported audit restrictions — could face future constitutional or legal challenges.