'What goes around comes around’: Sen Whitehouse blasts Scott Bessent for dodging Trump IRS questions

追加: 2026-06-07

[00:00:00]Have you identified any precedent for the agreement not to audit any tax claims against the Trump family?

[00:00:11]>> I can't identify any precedent where 400,000 tax returns, including [music] people you just [snorts] mentioned and all of their employees, were leaked.

[00:00:21]>> If there was any consideration offered or paid in return for that settlement, it's a very simple fact question. Was there or was there not consideration?

[00:00:30]>> Again, there's ongoing litigation and I suggest that you speak with the Treasury attorneys.

[00:00:35]>> If this kind of behavior is okay with the chairman, I'll just pursue other questions, but you know, what goes around comes around in terms of dodging questions. Thank you very much, Secretary. Welcome.

[00:00:46]Um Have you identified any precedent in Treasury or IRS history for the agreement not to audit investigate or pursue any tax claims against the Trump family or businesses?

[00:01:13]>> Uh I I can't identify any precedent where 400,000 tax returns, including people you just mentioned and all of their employees, were leaked in a violation of the most one of the most sacred duties of the IRS.

[00:01:30]>> So, let me cut to that then. The leak was by a contractor.

[00:01:36]Can you tell me what contribution is being sought by Treasury or by the IRS for the harm done by the contractor to a certain extent your organization and the IRS are the victim of the contractor's malfeasance or negligence. What is being pursued by way of contribution by that contractor?

[00:02:00]>> Uh well, the the the ranking member chastised me for cutting the contractor's contracts off, and we have the we have removed their contracts, their ability to do business with Treasury and the IRS.

[00:02:13]>> Uh but there is no contribution into this particular case.

[00:02:19]>> Uh again, Senator, you weren't here earlier, but I'm unable to discuss most of this because of ongoing litigation.

[00:02:25]>> Yeah, I know you like everybody likes to say that, but the Constitution >> We like to follow the the law, Senator.

[00:02:32]>> All right, and the law is that the con- the Congress has constitutional oversight functions that do not disappear simply because there is litigation, however convenient it may be by way of providing answers.

[00:02:45]So, we have no precedent for it. Uh no contribution is being sought from the contractor at fault.

[00:02:53]Was there any consideration to the government in return for the benefits of no audit, no investigation, no uh challenge or pursuit of refunds or other penalties?

[00:03:13]>> again, Senator, I I'm unable to comment because because of litigation. Treasury is represented by the Department of Justice in in all matters. They act as our attorneys, so I would suggest that you direct your questions to Acting Attorney General Blanched.

[00:03:29]>> Yeah. Well, I've had a lot of times people who are before us uh invite me to ask my questions of somebody who's not before us, but you're the one who is before us, and I think you ought to know if there was any consideration offered or paid in return for that settlement.

[00:03:48]It's a very simple fact question. Was there or was there not consideration?

[00:03:53]>> Again, there's ongoing litigation and I suggest that you speak with the Treasury attorneys.

[00:04:00]>> Um If this kind of behavior is okay with the chairman, I'll just pursue other questions, but you know, what goes around comes around in terms of dodging questions.

[00:04:11]>> I believe it's very clear that witnesses of any kind cannot discuss ongoing litigation.

[00:04:18]>> They can certainly discuss a fact that they are aware of. The fact that there is some litigation out there doesn't mean that a witness can't say, "Yeah, there was no consideration." Or "Yes, there was consideration."

[00:04:32]Um was there a defense analysis memo?

[00:04:35]It's referenced in the judge's decision in Florida.

[00:04:41]Um was there a defense analysis memo prepared by the IRS and more specifically did you see it?

[00:04:50]>> Again, I'm not going to be able to comment on these matters.

[00:04:56]>> Mr. Chairman, this just makes no sense at all. I've been a lawyer all my life.

[00:04:59]I have some idea of what is protected when you have a uh ongoing bit of litigation. Whether this individual has seen an official memo from within his own department is a very simple question to answer and I think it's completely inappropriate to have this game of dodge and be pursued without any consequences.

[00:05:32]Well, last of all, here's another question.

[00:05:35]Uh was there any analysis of what harm befell uh President Trump from having his taxes released when every president since Nixon released their taxes and he had promised to.

[00:05:58]Did anybody analyze whether there was actually any harm at all to him in those circumstances?

[00:06:04]>> Uh so there was a crime. President's rights under 6103 of the IRS code was violated and equally as important, 400,000 taxpayers had that right violated including every employee of the Trump administration, the housekeepers at Doral, the greenskeepers, and the cashiers.

[00:06:25]>> And you're welcome to pursue all of that, but it doesn't answer the question of whether the president actually suffered harm and you're not answering that question either.

[00:06:38]>> Senator Cortez Masto.

[00:06:42]>> Uh welcome, Secretary Bessant. Let me ask you this on a separate subject. Um Federal law prohibits the image of a living person from appearing on a US currency and that includes the president of the United States. Isn't that correct?

[00:06:58]>> Uh that that is correct, Senator.

[00:07:00]>> Thank you. Um there's reporting that your US Treasurer, Brandon Beach, and his senior advisor, Mike Brown, have been repeatedly urging staff at the agency's Bureau of Engraving and Printing to prepare prototypes of the note um a $250 bill with President Donald Trump's face on it and in fact in August and September, Beach provided Bureau staff with mock-up designs for the note including one that shows President Donald Trump's face in the center of the $250 bill between the signatures of the president and your signature. Um it is also reported that the artist who said he designed the mock-up told the post that he had spoken with Trump about it. Is it true that your staff is pursuing a mock up of this bill with President Trump's face on it?

[00:07:51]>> that was in coordination with pending legislation that in the Congress to change the uh requirement that a person must be deceased to be on the currency. So >> So you're acting before legislation has even passed to authorize it, is that correct?

[00:08:08]>> just as we did with the working families tax cut, we were prepared in advance. At Treasury, we do things in advance. My predecessor seemed to scramble to do things at the last minute.

[00:08:19]>> So, um, if the law does not pass, do you intend to still move forward without the authorization from Congress?

[00:08:25]>> Of course not. We will follow the law.

[00:08:28]>> Thank you.

[00:08:29]Let me let me ask you this question with respect to the um agreement um and the lawsuit settlement that a lot of my colleagues have been talking about shielding um the president, his family, and corporations from any future audits.

[00:08:42]You are the acting IRS commissioner, correct?

[00:08:46]>> That is incorrect.

[00:08:46]>> What is your position right now with the IRS?

[00:08:49]>> My term expired.

[00:08:50]>> So you have no position with the IRS whatsoever?

[00:08:52]>> The the the IRS is a bureau that reports to Treasury. When there is no commissioner, those duties float up to me.

[00:08:59]>> All right. So, um, there's no interaction that you have right now or responsibility over the IRS other than the commissioner's there. Commissioner has free reign and you don't have any authority to stop anything.

[00:09:11]>> No, there there is no commissioner, so I assume those duties.

[00:09:15]>> So there is no commissioner, so you're acting commissioner.

[00:09:17]>> No, that that's incorrect.

[00:09:19]>> Okay, so for purposes of the public, let's get it straight so the public knows your involvement. There is no commissioner.

[00:09:25]There's somebody that is acting >> I had pre- No, I had previously been the acting commissioner. Senator Warren, who's likes to send me a lot of letters, was kind enough to send me a letter.

[00:09:33]>> Yeah, I'm just trying to figure out your real role with aware of For the For the purposes of the public and transparency, what is your role currently with the IRS in your authority?

[00:09:41]>> The I am performing the duties of the commissioner.

[00:09:44]>> Oh. Oh, so you are. Okay, got it. So, let me ask you this because you talked about not only Donald Trump and his family, but there were 400,000 taxpayers' information that was also leaked by Mr. Littlejohn, the contractor working for the IRS.

[00:10:00]Do you intend to give them the same immunity as President Trump and his family received?

[00:10:04]>> I I Again, you were not here at the beginning. I had a statement that I read to Chairman Quit Crapo that I am unable to provide any additional detail >> not part of the litigation.

[00:10:15]>> due to litigation.

[00:10:17]>> That That's The 400,000 taxpayers aren't part of the litigation.

[00:10:20]You You have said there were 400,000 taxpayers' information that was also leaked. They're not part of that litigation. Do you intend to give them the same immunity that you gave Donald Trump and his family and corporations that were part of the litigation?

[00:10:34]>> Senator, I You may have missed the first part of this, but Treasury does not give any of that. We are represented by the Justice Department.

[00:10:43]>> That's right. You're the acting commissioner. As acting commissioner, you had said earlier you had concerns about those 400,000 taxpayers whose documents were leaked by independent contractor with the IRS. If you have concerns about those 400,000, do you intend as acting or your whatever role it is you have as the IRS commissioner, do you intend to give them the same type of treatment?

[00:11:07]>> We We will follow the instructions and the settlement that by >> That was not part of the settlement.

[00:11:13]>> by by the >> That was not part of the settlement.

[00:11:15]>> So, clearly Let me just say that was not part of the settlement. It's been very clear you're dodging this and you're trying to use this as an excuse. It's just outrageous on behalf of the American public.

[00:11:26]>> that I represent the counsel and that I will follow the laws an excuse Senator?

[00:11:30]>> When you were going through your confirmation process, you stated that your goal was to get the federal budget deficit to 3% of GDP by the end of President Trump's term. However, the administration's budget proposal for this year projects a deficit of over 5% of GDP GDP by 2029. Do you no longer intend to achieve that 3% goal?

[00:11:51]>> I I I do. I said something with a three in front of it and we in fact had a fiscal contraction last year. So, we are already in the five range.

[00:12:03]>> You said something with a three in front of it. All right.

[00:12:07]I appreciate you being here.

[00:12:09]>> [music] [music]