General Discussion

mahatmakanejeeves

(71,130 posts) Thu Jun 4, 2026, 06:22 AM 12 hrs ago

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent refuses to say whether Trump remains exempt from IRS audits

Politics
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent refuses to say whether Trump remains exempt from IRS audits

{picture}
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent testifies before the Senate Committee on Finance, Wednesday, June 3, 2026 in Washington. (AP Photo/Allison Robbert)

By FATIMA HUSSEIN
Updated 8:16 PM EDT, June 3, 2026
Leer en español

WASHINGTON (AP) — Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent refused to say Wednesday whether President Donald Trump and his family would still get immunity from IRS audits after the administration abandoned plans for a $1.776 billion compensation fund that would have benefited the president’s allies.

“There’s continuing litigation, and I’m unable to comment on ongoing litigation,” Bessent told lawmakers at the Senate Finance Committee hearing.

It was a frustrating answer for Democratic lawmakers looking to get answers from Bessent at a hearing ostensibly focused on the Treasury Department’s budget and came a day after acting Attorney General Todd Blanche seemed to indicate that the portion of the settlement dealing with the IRS audit immunity would still be in effect for the Republican president.

After several failed attempts to get Bessent to answer, Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., said, “It’s been very clear you’re dodging this and you’re trying to use it as an excuse. It’s just outrageous on behalf of the American public.”

{snip}

3 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent refuses to say whether Trump remains exempt from IRS audits (Original Post) mahatmakanejeeves 12 hrs ago OP

Translation from the smug faced little worm: Yes he is, but I won't go on the record to say it. AZLD4Candidate 8 hrs ago #1

demonstrating why he has that job themaguffin 8 hrs ago #2

MS NOW- Even if Trump kills his $1.8 billion slush fund, his IRS lawsuit headache isn't over LetMyPeopleVote 3 hrs ago #3

AZLD4Candidate

(7,018 posts)

1. Translation from the smug faced little worm: Yes he is, but I won't go on the record to say it.

Reply to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Thu Jun 4, 2026, 10:40 AM

8 hrs ago

themaguffin

(5,428 posts)

2. demonstrating why he has that job

Reply to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Thu Jun 4, 2026, 10:40 AM

8 hrs ago

LetMyPeopleVote

(182,930 posts)

3. MS NOW- Even if Trump kills his $1.8 billion slush fund, his IRS lawsuit headache isn't over

Reply to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Thu Jun 4, 2026, 03:46 PM

3 hrs ago

The controversial settlement included both a fund that has sparked a political backlash and IRS immunity for the president, his relatives and Trump businesses.

Link to tweet

https://www.ms.now/opinion/trump-billion-fund-irs-settlement-legal-jeopardy

A lawsuit is valid only when there is “a case or controversy” between adverse parties. Since Trump controls the executive branch, there was an obvious lack of adversity between a sitting president and entities whose decisions were subject to his direction. From the outset, Williams, who presides over the case in the Southern District of Florida, expressed skepticism of the lawsuit’s legitimacy. She asked the parties to submit briefs addressing whether the lawsuit was, in fact, a legitimate adverse proceeding....

Last week, 35 former federal judges filed a motion asking Williams to reopen the case. They argued that “the purported ‘settlement’ that the parties never placed before this Court raises profound questions about the parties’ candor toward the Court and manipulation of the judicial system, which threatens to undermine confidence in the administration of justice.” The settlement is “a fraud on the Court,” they wrote.

Two days after the 35 former judges filed their motion, Judge Williams issued an order in response. The court, she wrote, “is empowered to investigate serious misconduct as a collateral issue” and to determine whether the suit was filed for an “improper purpose.”

Among the key points in her order:

the grant of IRS immunity did not relate “to the immediate subject matter of the claim,” which was the leak of Trump’s tax information;

the IRS and the U.S. Treasury “did not ‘even try to defend against” Trump’s claims, despite actively opposing “nearly identical claims in other litigation”;

and, as the former judges had argued, Trump’s claims were “clearly untimely” and barred by the expired statute of limitations.

Williams ordered Trump, the IRS and the U.S. Treasury to respond by June 12 on: “(1) the charges of collusion and whether the Parties are truly adverse; (2) the assertion that the dismissal in this case was premised on deception by the Parties; and (3) the question of whether the case should be reopened because the Court was the ‘victim of a fraud.’”

So here is Trump’s quandary: He must answer Williams’ questions with facts. He cannot simply submit a memorandum filled with platitudes denying collusion or dismissing the matter as a witch hunt. The court will likely expect sworn affidavits setting out facts to support any defense that there was no collusion and no deception.

The judge will almost certainly expect Trump, the named plaintiff, to submit an affidavit himself responding to all three of Williams’ inquiries.

Whatever is filed in response to the court’s order could raise additional issues, which could lead to an evidentiary hearing with witnesses. Matters not fully addressed in the affidavits or that otherwise remain ambiguous would need to be explored, with Williams empowered to assess credibility firsthand.....

Because we have an independent judiciary and judges committed to the rule of law, Trump could remain accountable for fraud or other misdeeds he may have committed in pursuing his lawsuit against the IRS or the settlement. Jettisoning the controversial fund doesn’t automatically end Judge Williams’ inquiry.

Even if trump drops the slush fund part of the case, Judge Williams will need to still hold a hearing on the IRS immunity issue and trump may have to testify by either affidavit or in person. This hearing will be fun to watch

Reply to this discussion