Former IRS, DOJ officials call on judge to scrutinize Trump audit immunity deal

A group of four former officials at the IRS and Department of Justice (DOJ) filed an amicus brief on Monday urging the court to rule President Trump’s audit immunity deal was unlawful.

The former officials — John Koskinen, former IRS commissioner; Kathryn Keneally, former assistant attorney general for the DOJ’s tax division; Nina Olson, former national taxpayer advocate; and Gilbert Rothenberg, former chief of DOJ’s tax division appellate section — submitted the amicus brief and argued that last month’s settlement rendering Trump, his family and business affiliates “forever” exempt from IRS claims on prior tax returns violates the Domestic Emoluments Clause.

The law is an anti-corruption safeguard stating that the president shall receive a fixed compensation for their services and cannot receive any other “emolument” (financial benefit, profit or advantage) from the United States or any individual state.

On May 18, Trump decided to voluntarily dismiss his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS for leaking his tax returns, and the DOJ announced terms of the settlement included creating a $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization” fund.

The following day, a separate document signed by acting Attorney General Todd Blanche outlined the decision to “forever” bar the president and his affiliates from having their tax returns examined regarding all claims “whether presently known or unknown.”

“While there is some ambiguity as to the scope of the release because it is poorly drafted, the Immunity Order appears to cover not just tax liability, but also any non-tax issues that would be handled by ‘other agencies or departments’ besides the IRS. Within a month after Acting AG Blanche issued the Immunity Order, President Trump nominated Blanche to be Attorney General,” the amicus brief states.

“The Immunity Order is an unprecedented and breathtakingly improper attempt by the President and the Acting AG to bestow broad civil and criminal immunity upon President Trump, his family, and their vast network of hundreds of businesses and undefined affiliates for all conduct (both tax and non-tax) that occurred before May 18, 2026,” it continues.

In the amicus brief, the former officials question whether the May 18 settlement agreement and the May 19 immunity order were “collusive” and ask whether Trump and Blanche “inappropriately used this lawsuit as a fig leaf ‘to provide the imprimatur of legality’ for the broad immunity that President Trump and his family, businesses, and affiliates have illegally achieved.”

The officials also argue that Blanche did not have the authority to provide immunity from audits because the circumstances were never referred to the DOJ for potential prosecution.

“The President of the United States is obligated to pay taxes he owes, just like every other American. If the Immunity Order is allowed to stand, it will enshrine two separate tax codes, one for President Trump, his family, and his ‘affiliates,’ and another for every other American,” the group of former officials wrote.

“It opens the door for President Trump and future presidents to avoid scrutiny of their taxes while in office and absolve themselves and favored individuals of wrongdoing,” they added.