/>i
On May 18, 2026, President Trump, together with his sons Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump and the Trump Organization, voluntarily dismissed a $10 billion lawsuit they had filed in January 2026 against the IRS and the Treasury Department over the leak of the president’s tax returns by a former IRS contractor.1 The next day, May 19, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche signed a one-page order (“Release Order”), which the Justice Department posted on its website, declaring the United States “FOREVER BARRED and PRECLUDED” from prosecuting or pursuing specified claims, examinations, or related reviews against the plaintiffs and a broad group of related individuals and entities. The order encompasses matters raised or that could have been raised in the lawsuit or related agency claims, “Lawfare and/or Weaponization,” and matters currently pending, or that could be pending, including tax returns filed before May 18, 2026.2
That publicly posted order is the operative instrument this article examines. It raises a fundamental rule-of-law question. Can the federal government permanently bar itself from pursuing tax claims or audits involving a named taxpayer and related persons and entities? Could that protection extend to federal criminal tax prosecution, and can it survive a future legal challenge?
The answer this article develops is that the protection reaches only as far as lawful federal authority permits: the audit bar rests on disputed statutory authority, the government retains recognized grounds for challenging commitments that exceed that authority, the Release Order does not bind state tax agencies or prosecutors, and a civil settlement does not, without clear and lawful terms, confer criminal immunity.
The starting point is a basic distinction. A valid presidential pardon for federal offenses is an exercise of Article II clemency power.3 A DOJ settlement, tax waiver, non-prosecution commitment, or audit bar is different. It depends on statutory authority, valid agency action, lawful settlement power, constitutional limits, and ordinary legal principles that apply to government contracts and ultra vires acts.
The arrangement’s status is not in doubt; the Justice Department posted the executed documents to its own website.4 These are signed instruments, not a draft under negotiation. The settlement was signed by Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward and the IRS CEO, and the separate one-page audit-bar order by Acting Attorney General Blanche alone.5 An executed settlement is ordinarily binding as a contract, enforceable under the same principles that govern any agreement, so a signed deal is not something a later administration may simply ignore.6 But no court approved these documents before they took effect, and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, in a July 13, 2026 ruling, reserved the narrow question whether the private agreement is valid and enforceable. However, it also found that the audit bar contravenes Section 7217 and that the underlying lawsuit was collusive and brought for an improper purpose, and it barred the parties from holding the documents out as a settlement.7 If the audit bar is challenged, the controlling issue will not be political disagreement with it. It will be whether the documents were lawful when signed.
A DOJ Tax Settlement Is Not the Same Thing as a Pardon
The Attorney General generally supervises litigation involving the United States, and the DOJ has broad authority to settle civil litigation. But that authority is not unlimited. A settlement cannot lawfully do what no executive official had power to do in the first place. If an agreement purports to terminate pending audits, preclude future federal tax claims, or block criminal tax prosecution for past conduct, the government and any reviewing court must ask whether the official who signed it had lawful authority to give that protection.
That question becomes especially serious where the beneficiary is the sitting President, his family, or his affiliated businesses.
Internal Revenue Code section 7217 makes it unlawful for certain executive branch officials, including the President and Vice President, to request that the IRS conduct or terminate an audit or investigation of a particular taxpayer, subject to narrow statutory exceptions.8 Even if an Attorney General has litigation-settlement authority, a settlement that functions as a bespoke audit-termination device for an identifiable taxpayer raises a far different issue from an ordinary civil compromise.
This is why any future challenge would likely frame the agreement not as an ordinary non-prosecution agreement,9 but as an ultra vires and unconstitutional arrangement: a purported private tax immunity deal, issued through executive control of litigation, that interferes with normal IRS audit and criminal tax referral processes.
Is the Agreement Open to Future Legal Challenges?
A future administration cannot simply disregard a valid settlement. If the United States lawfully entered a settlement within the scope of DOJ authority, courts may enforce it under ordinary principles. But if the agreement exceeded statutory authority, involved a conflict that tainted the government’s position, lacked genuine adversity, was procured through misrepresentation, or purported to nullify tax enforcement powers Congress preserved, the government could later seek judicial relief or take the position that the agreement is void and unenforceable.10
That distinction matters. A lawful prosecution declination is one thing. A categorical promise that the federal government is “forever barred” from examining or prosecuting tax claims against a named taxpayer and related parties is much more aggressive. In operation, it resembles clemency, permanently extinguishing the government’s power to examine and enforce past conduct, yet it invokes no pardon power and no statutory instrument the tax code recognizes. The former IRS Commissioner said he knew of no precedent for the agency agreeing in advance to permanently forgo examination of a specific taxpayer’s filed returns.11
These are the grounds on which the agreement is vulnerable: a lack of statutory authority, a violation of section 7217’s anti-interference principle, improper use of public funds, separation-of-powers concerns, a conflict of interest, and constitutional equal-protection or due-process objections. The July 13 ruling has already invoked several of them.
The equal-protection issue would need to be framed carefully. The Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause applies to states, but the Supreme Court has long recognized an equal-protection component in the Fifth Amendment due process as applied to the federal government.12 A special tax-immunity arrangement for one taxpayer, family, and business network could be challenged as an arbitrary federal benefit unavailable to similarly situated taxpayers. Courts give the executive branch substantial latitude in settlement and prosecutorial discretion, so a challenger would still face serious standing, justiciability, and merits hurdles.13 That deference, however, presupposes a genuine exercise of discretion in adversarial litigation. Here, the district court found neither: it held that the arrangement “deviated from [the government’s] litigation posture in similar actions, disregarded DOJ policies, and accomplished objectives beyond those authorized, as well as those specifically prohibited, by law.”14
Why State Tax Crimes Remain Wide Open
Even if a federal non-prosecution or tax settlement survived as to federal authorities, it would not protect against state tax crimes. The federal government cannot bargain away the sovereign criminal enforcement powers of New York, California, or any other state. A DOJ agreement binds only the federal government to the extent it is valid and enforceable. It does not bind state attorneys general, district attorneys, state tax agencies, or state grand juries.
The same principle applies to presidential pardons. Even a valid presidential pardon reaches only federal offenses, not state crimes. The comparison matters because the pardon is the strongest clemency power the Constitution grants, and it still stops at the state line. Article II reaches only “Offenses against the United States,” which the Supreme Court has confined to federal crimes, not offenses against the states as held in Ex parte Grossman.15 A federal settlement rests on statutory authority alone, so if the greater power cannot disable state prosecutors, the lesser one cannot either. Under the dual-sovereignty doctrine, state and federal governments may prosecute separate offenses arising from the same conduct because each sovereign enforces its own law.16 Therefore, if a state tax authority or prosecutor has evidence supporting state tax fraud, falsified business records, false state returns, evasion of state tax, or related state crimes, a federal tax settlement does not automatically bar that case.
That point is critical. A federal deal may affect access to federal witnesses, IRS records, or federal cooperation, but it does not erase state law. State prosecutors may use their own subpoenas, bank records, business records, state tax filings, witnesses, and forensic accounting to build a case. If the facts support a state criminal tax prosecution and the statute of limitations has not run, federal protection is not a state shield.
The Criminal Tax Lesson: Never Confuse a Civil Settlement with Total Immunity
Taxpayers often misunderstand the legal effect of government settlements, closing agreements, audit closures, civil compromises, declinations, and non-prosecution language. Each document must be read according to its exact scope, parties, authority, and subject matter. A federal civil tax settlement may not bar criminal tax prosecution unless it clearly and lawfully does so. A federal criminal declination may not bar civil fraud penalties. A federal resolution may not bar state tax charges in New York or California. A deal covering existing audits may not cover future years, different entities, different taxes, false statements made during the process, obstruction, or newly discovered conduct outside the agreement’s scope.
This episode illustrates a discipline that applies to every taxpayer: the form of the instrument matters as much as its words. The Internal Revenue Code supplies specific vehicles for binding resolution, closing agreements under Section 7121 and offers in compromise under Section 7122, and each requires signatures from officials holding delegated authority.17 A closing agreement is final and conclusive, yet even it remains open to challenge for fraud, malfeasance, or misrepresentation of a material fact. A press release is none of these things. A one-page order signed by a single official may be none of these things. A taxpayer offered protection in any form should ask these questions: Is the instrument one the law recognizes? Did the signing official hold authority to bind the government? Would the commitment survive a court that examined how it was made?
For high-profile taxpayers, the stakes are even higher. The IRS Criminal Investigation Division and Justice Department tax prosecutors often distinguish between civil tax exposure, criminal tax investigation, and criminal tax prosecution. A taxpayer facing potential civil and criminal tax exposure should never assume that a negotiated, civilly styled, or agency-level agreement supplies blanket protection. If the agreement is challenged as void, unconstitutional, unauthorized, or contrary to public policy, relying on it may become a dangerous gamble.
Endnotes
1. Kevin Breuninger, Trump, Two Sons, Trump Org Sue IRS, Treasury for $10 Billion Over Tax Records Leak, CNBC (Jan. 29, 2026), https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/29/trump-sues-irs-and-treasury-for-10-billion-over-leak-of-tax-records.html.
2. Order Regarding Release of Claims, U.S. Department of Justice (May 19, 2026), https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1441216/dl.
3. U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 1; Ex parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 87, 113 (1925), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/267/87/; see also David Klasing, “Presidential Pardon Brokering Can Create Risks For Attys,” Law360 (Jan. 26, 2026), https://www.law360.com/articles/2433813/presidential-pardon-brokering-can-create-risks-for-attys.
4. Order Regarding Release of Claims, supra note 2.
5. IRS “Forever Barred” From Audits of Trump, His Family, Businesses, UPI (May 20, 2026), https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2026/05/20/blanche-trump-family-business-immunity-IRS/8561779291226/.
6. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381 (1994) (treating settlement agreements as contracts whose enforcement is governed by ordinary contract principles), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/511/375/.
7. Judge Says Trump Sued IRS for “Improper Purpose”; Refers His Lawyer to Bar, CNBC (July 13, 2026), https://www.cnbc.com/2026/07/13/trump-irs-doj-lawsuit-blanche.html.
8. 26 U.S.C. § 7217, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7217.
9. Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), Wex, Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School (last reviewed Apr. 2026), https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/non_prosecution_agreement_NPA.
10. See Authority of the United States to Enter Settlements Limiting the Future Exercise of Executive Branch Discretion, 23 Op. O.L.C. 126 (1999) (recognizing that the government is generally bound by lawful settlements but that a settlement is unenforceable to the extent it exceeds the settling official's authority or contravenes statutory limits), https://www.justice.gov/file/146406/dl.
11. Trump's Old Taxes Can’t Be Audited as Part of IRS Deal, PolitiFact (May 21, 2026) (quoting former IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel’s statement that he knew of no precedent for the IRS agreeing in advance to permanently forgo examination of a specific taxpayer’s previously filed returns), https://www.politifact.com/article/2026/may/21/trump-taxes-irs-audits-weaponization/.
12. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1, https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/; see Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 499 (1954) (recognizing an equal-protection component in Fifth Amendment due process applicable to the federal government), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/347/497/.
13. United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464 (1996) (recognizing the presumption of regularity that attaches to prosecutorial decisions and the broad discretion the Executive enjoys in enforcement), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/517/456/; DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 343–46 (2006) (holding that a plaintiff's status as a taxpayer generally does not confer standing to challenge federal tax or spending decisions), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/547/332/.
14. Order, Trump v. Internal Revenue Service (S.D. Fla. July 13, 2026) (Williams, J.), as reported in Judge Voids Trump's $1.8 Billion Settlement With IRS, Courthouse News Service (July 13, 2026), https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-voids-trumps-1-8-billion-settlement-with-irs/.
15. U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 1; Ex parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 87, 113 (1925); see also Scope of Pardon Power, Constitution Annotated, Congress.gov, https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C1-3-5/ALDE_00013322/.
16. See Gamble v. United States, 587 U.S. 678, 681–88 (2019) (reaffirming the dual-sovereignty doctrine and holding that because a crime against one sovereign is not the same offense as a crime against another, successive federal and state prosecutions for the same conduct do not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/587/17-646/.
17. 26 U.S.C. § 7121 (closing agreements), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7121; 26 U.S.C. § 7122 (compromises), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7122.
