Democrats Press Treasury, IRS Over $1.8 Billion Trump Fund and Audit Halt
Updated
Updated · WLS-TV · May 22
Democrats Press Treasury, IRS Over $1.8 Billion Trump Fund and Audit Halt
4 articles · Updated · WLS-TV · May 22
Elizabeth Warren and Ron Wyden demanded answers from Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and IRS Commissioner Billy Long’s successor Frank Bisignano over a settlement creating a $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” and ending existing IRS audits of Trump-related entities.
The senators said the deal could secretly route taxpayer money to Trump allies — potentially including Jan. 6 defendants — because a five-member commission appointed by the attorney general would control payouts and Trump could remove members.
A settlement addendum posted Tuesday says the IRS is “forever barred” from pursuing current matters involving Trump, his family and affiliated businesses, though the Justice Department later said the restriction covers existing audits, not future ones.
The fund stems from Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit after a contractor leaked tax records; DOJ plans to finance it from the federal compensation fund normally used for judgments and settlements.
Bipartisan backlash is widening: Senate Republicans delayed a $70 billion immigration bill over the fund, and Warren and Wyden also asked the Treasury tax inspector general to investigate the agreement.
Without judicial review, what safeguards can ensure a presidentially-controlled $1.8 billion fund is distributed fairly?
In May 2026, President Donald Trump ended his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS with a settlement that created a $1.8 billion 'Anti-Weaponization Fund' and granted audit immunity to himself, his family, and their businesses. These terms sparked immediate outrage, as many critics called the fund a 'slush fund' meant to reward Trump’s allies. Lawmakers and legal experts questioned the fund’s legality and the audit immunity provision, arguing they bypassed congressional authority and normal oversight. The settlement’s lack of transparency and judicial review raised fears of executive overreach and set a troubling precedent for future government actions.