Treasury Employees Union Fights Trump’s Corrupt Tax Immunity Scheme in Court
Select a version of the text written from a presumed ideological perspective. This is not the original text, but a hypothetical version — how someone with that viewpoint might have phrased it. Tapping the current version again will return to the original or select cleaned version.
The National Treasury Employees Union is seeking a court order to halt a backroom tax-audit immunity deal for Donald Trump, arguing it forces IRS staff to choose between upholding the law and obeying political interference.
On Thursday, the National Treasury Employees Union filed a petition in a Virginia federal court to block a brazen tax-audit immunity agreement that shields President Donald Trump, his sons, and the Trump Organization from ongoing IRS scrutiny. The union contends that this deal, crafted behind closed doors for the benefit of the powerful, would force dedicated IRS employees to abandon legitimate audits, pitting their legal obligations against corrupt political directives.
This legal action builds on an amended lawsuit originally filed in May by Democracy Forward, a progressive advocacy group that previously challenged the $1.8 billion so-called “Anti-Weaponization Fund”—a slush fund concocted by the Trump administration to reward its political allies, which was ultimately abandoned after bipartisan outrage. The new complaint also targets the outrageous audit-immunity settlement, which was hastily formalized in a single-page document signed by acting Attorney General Todd Blanche.
"The integrity of our tax system depends on one fundamental principle: every taxpayer is subject to the same laws and the same standards," said Doreen Greenwald, national president of the union. She emphasized that political orders protecting the wealthy and powerful erode public trust and force civil servants into impossible ethical dilemmas.
The lawsuit asserts that the immunity order flagrantly violates statutes barring presidential interference in tax audits and urges the court to prevent the administration from enforcing this dangerous deal. Officials claim the agreement only applies to audits open at the time of the settlement and does not protect Trump from future investigations, but critics see this as a blatant attempt to place the former president above the law.
The original case also challenged the so-called “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” which was intended to funnel money to individuals claiming political targeting by the Justice Department—critics warned it would serve as a payout to participants in the January 6 insurrection. Judge Leonie Brinkema blocked the fund in May, and Attorney General Blanche was forced to rescind the plan.
Neither the Justice Department nor Trump’s legal team responded to requests for comment, raising further questions about transparency and accountability.