Archive · 29 Aug 2026
DOJ Balks at Details on Trump’s IRS Settlement
The Justice Department made a deal with Donald Trump involving a lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service.
The deal included protection from some audits for Trump, certain family members, and his company.
It also involved a proposed fund for people who said the government had treated them unfairly.
A group of critics is suing to challenge parts of that arrangement.
They want to know which officials helped create or approve it.
A judge said the government had not properly answered those questions.
The Justice Department said the requests were too broad.
The two sides will try to agree on what information must be provided.
The Justice Department is resisting demands for information about President Donald Trump’s settlement with the Internal Revenue Service.
A Virginia lawsuit challenges the settlement’s audit-immunity provision and a proposed $1.8 billion fund for alleged government “weaponization” victims.
Magistrate Judge Ivan Davis said the government had failed to properly answer discovery requests about people involved in creating the arrangement.
The Justice Department said the challengers had not reasonably narrowed the offices and individuals targeted by their requests.
The parties must meet next week; if they cannot agree, Davis will consider compelling disclosures at a Sept. 4 hearing.
- Who
- The Justice Department, Donald Trump, the Internal Revenue Service, and challengers including a former federal prosecutor and a federal employee union.
- What
- A Virginia lawsuit is seeking information about and challenging a settlement between Trump and the Internal Revenue Service.
- When
- The dispute was addressed at a Friday hearing; further discussions are scheduled for next week, with hearings set for Sept. 4 and Sept. 18.
- Where
- The lawsuit is before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in Alexandria, Virginia; Trump’s related lawsuit was filed in Florida.
- Why
- The challengers seek evidence about who created and approved the arrangement, while the Justice Department argues the requests are improper or overly broad.
Challengers and Court Concerns
Justice Department Position
Disclosure of participants
Challengers and Court Concerns
The challengers want names and evidence involving people with decision-making authority in the arrangement’s conception, creation, and execution.
Justice Department Position
The Justice Department says it responded in good faith and objects that the challengers have not reasonably narrowed the offices and people to be searched.
Adequacy of discovery responses
Challengers and Court Concerns
The challengers argue the government must provide the requested information or identify specific legal protections for withholding it.
Justice Department Position
The government maintains that the requests improperly seek information it is not required to provide and has invoked the need for appropriately limited discovery.
Legality of the arrangement
Challengers and Court Concerns
The plaintiffs argue that the audit-immunity order is unlawful and challenge the proposed weaponization fund and broader settlement.
Justice Department Position
The administration is seeking to have the Virginia lawsuit dismissed, while the settlement agreement has not been formally changed.
- Settlement subject
- Trump dropped his Florida lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service as part of the arrangement.
- Proposed fund
- The now-defunct plan would have created a $1.8 billion fund for victims of alleged government “weaponization.”
- Audit protection
- Attorney General Todd Blanche issued an order immunizing Trump, certain family members, and his company from audits into past tax filings.
- Judge’s criticism
- Magistrate Judge Ivan Davis said the government had neither provided requested names nor explained why they were protected.
- Government response
- Justice Department counsel Andrew Block said the government had responded in good faith and that the requests were not sufficiently narrowed.
- Next hearing
- If the parties cannot resolve the dispute, Davis will consider whether to compel disclosures on Sept. 4.
- Case
- Floyd v. Department of Justice, 26-cv-1399, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.