Trump's DOJ Settlement May Be Illegal. Here's What the Law Actually Says.

Added: 2026-05-22

[00:00:00]Can this unprecedented settlement between the Trump Department of Justice and the president and his family and his businesses be stopped? Well, Democrats, Republicans, and even some former Capitol Police officers are now pushing back on the so-called anti-weaponization fund and the ban on IRS audits of past Trump tax returns. But will any of that work? Well, if you don't know what I'm talking about, make sure you check out my video from yesterday. But the bottom line here is President Trump sued the IRS for allegedly disclosing his tax returns, claiming 10 billion dollars in damages. Now, before that case could fully be examined by a federal judge and maybe even dismissed as frivolous by that judge, Trump's own Department of Justice just gave up on defending the US government and the US taxpayers and instead quietly settled with the president in exchange for him dropping that 10 billion-dollar lawsuit. The settlement includes a 1.8 billion-dollar taxpayer-funded anti-weaponization fund to compensate people that the DOJ and President Trump say were prosecuted by the federal government for political reasons. And the settlement also includes an unprecedented deal that blocks the IRS from auditing or investigating the past tax returns of the president, his family, his extended family, related individuals, or his businesses and trusts. Today, Trump said he had no idea how that settlement came to be. So, I released them from the lawsuit and I guess they made a settlement of some kind. I wasn't involved in the settlement.

[00:01:26]I could have been involved, but I didn't choose to be. Even though he wasn't involved in the settlement, Trump thinks this anti-weaponization fund is absolutely needed.

[00:01:34]>> People were destroyed. They went to jail, their their families were ruined, they committed suicide, and we're getting we're reimbursing those people people for their legal fees and for their costs and for anybody involved.

[00:01:46]But they destroyed people.

[00:01:48]>> Obviously, there has been a lot of blowback from you, but also from Democrats and even several House and Senate Republicans who are like, "Yeah, I don't know how any of this can be legal and we have a lot of questions we need answers to. And before I tell you about the pushback that has now started and what people are doing, you first need to understand the problem, which is because this settlement was reached outside of court between President Trump and the Department of Justice, which Trump also controls because it is headed up by his former personal lawyer, no judge had to sign off on this deal. Now, it's true out-of-court settlements happen all the time. There's nothing illegal about that. But, this particular settlement raises serious legal questions because it not only involves nearly $2 billion of taxpayer money and interference in IRS operations, it also raises questions of whether it's even legal for a US government agency clearly controlled by the president to enter into a settlement with that same president. And when it comes to this anti-weaponization fund, some of the legal questions being raised include under what authority is the Department of Justice going to hand out this money to these politically persecuted people?

[00:03:01]Yes, of course Congress has authorized the DOJ to settle cases and award monetary compensation to certain people in certain cases, but did Congress authorize this amount of money for this particular use? And when it comes to this ban on audits for past Trump tax returns, under what authority does the DOJ make that deal? There's a law from the Richard Nixon era called the Tax Reform Act of 1976 that explicitly prohibits the president, vice president, and White House staff from requesting or attempting to influence any IRS audit or investigation into a specific taxpayer.

[00:03:37]However, while it is highly unusual, the DOJ is legally allowed to enter into a settlement that blocks the IRS from pursuing audits of a specific person.

[00:03:47]The question is, was the White House involved in this settlement arrangement in any way, shape, or form. And if so, does that violate that 1976 law? And that brings me to the effort to stop all of this. The bottom line here is, in order to stop this, either someone with standing has to file a lawsuit and a judge may block it, or Congress needs to pass a bill. Former Capitol Police officers filed a federal lawsuit to stop the anti-weaponization fund today, but whether they have standing to bring this lawsuit is questionable. Meanwhile, Democrats in the House and the Senate have already introduced several pieces of legislation to block any payments from that anti-weaponization fund from going out to anybody. But because Democrats are not the majority, I'm focused more on what the Republicans are doing and saying today because, let's be honest, in order for any of this to be stopped, at least some Republicans are going to have to be on board. And several already are, including Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana. If it's it's it's as if somebody sued themselves, agreed upon a settlement with themselves, and that's going to be funded by the rest of us.

[00:04:54]There is no legal precedent for this.

[00:04:56]And so going back to the family struggling, if we say we're going to put 1.7 billion because some people sued themselves and they settled with themselves, but we got the bill, I can tell you the voter doesn't like that. Or if they like it, maybe they're in on it. I'm not in on it and I'm going to oppose it. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a Republican from South Dakota, told reporters he is not a big fan of any of this. And then he said this. Do you believe this is a legitimate fund and do you believe those terms are fair? I think that there are and and will be continue to be a lot of questions around that that the administration is going to have to answer. I know it doesn't sound like a lot, but that is a pretty strong statement coming from the Republican Senate Majority Leader. And over in the House, Representative Brian Fitzpatrick, a Republican from Pennsylvania, said Republicans are going to try to kill it, meaning the fund and this Trump IRS deal. Now, whether he can rally enough Republican support to do that is unclear, but what is clear is after Fitzpatrick made that statement today, Trump issued this threat. He votes against He likes voting against Trump.

[00:06:06]You know what happens with that. Doesn't work out well.