“BREAK IT DOWN!”

A couple of weeks ago, I penned a post entitled, “It’s A Great Deal…If You Can Get It”(https://thesphinxofcharlotte.com/2026/05/20/its-a-great-deal-if-you-can-get-it/). Yesterday, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche made an announcement that suggests it may not be possible to get it. At least, not all of it.

The decision to abandon the Justice Department’s proposed “anti-weaponization” fund while preserving the separate ban on audits of President Donald Trump’s past tax returns underscores a familiar pattern in Washington: when a controversial package becomes politically toxic, officials often jettison the most visible liability while trying to preserve the quieter but more consequential benefit. Recent reporting indicates that Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told lawmakers the administration would no longer proceed with the roughly $1.776 billion fund after backlash from Republican senators as well as broader criticism that it could become a vehicle for politically sympathetic claimants, including people tied to January 6. At the same time, Blanche said the agreement shielding Trump and his family from future audits of previously filed returns would stay in place.

That split matters. The fund was always the easier target because it was public, expensive, and symbolically explosive. The Department of Justice had framed it as a mechanism to compensate victims of alleged government “lawfare,” but critics across the political spectrum saw it as a slush fund in waiting. The strongest objections were not just legal but political: lawmakers worried about taxpayer money being used to reward allies of the president or individuals who would become instant symbols of partisan grievance.

Once that perception hardened, the fund became a burden on the administration’s broader agenda, especially as Republican legislators signaled it could complicate unrelated negotiations over immigration and spending. In short, the fund generated immediate heat and limited upside. Dropping it was a way to defuse the loudest controversy.

The audit ban, however, appears to be the provision the administration most wanted to preserve. Unlike the fund, it does not require creating a new bureaucracy, distributing money, or defending visible payouts. Yet it may be far more significant in practical terms. Reporting on the settlement indicates that the IRS is barred from auditing returns filed before May 18, 2026, covering Trump, certain family members, trusts, and businesses. 

Legal and tax experts have described that kind of prospective immunity from examination as extraordinary and difficult to reverse. Because the provision is embedded in a settlement agreement rather than a headline-grabbing public program, its political profile is lower—even though its long-term implications may be greater. It diminishes scrutiny, if not controversy.

Seen that way, dropping the anti-weaponization fund while keeping the tax-audit shield is less a retreat than a recalibration. The administration appears to have concluded that it could sacrifice the most combustible piece of the arrangement while retaining the part that most directly benefits Trump and his family. Politically, that may blunt some immediate criticism, because the discarded provision was easier to explain in one shocking number: nearly $1.8 billion. But substantively, the surviving clause may prove more important, because it narrows the government’s ability to examine past tax matters involving the sitting president. If the fund was the flashpoint, the audit ban is the legacy provision. And that is why the real story is not only what was dropped, but what remains. But not so fast. Mr. Blanche was asked whether he would provide a written memo detailing the decision to forego the nearly $2 billion settlement? He declined. No disrespect to the Acting AG, but this non-legal scholar’s inquiring mind wonders, “If It’s Not In Writing, Is It Really A Deal?”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com. Find a new post each Wednesday.

To subscribe, click on Follow in the bottom right-hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated space, and click on “Sign me up.”

Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box. For more detailed information on a variety of aspects related to this post, consult search engines for more information on the subject.

This post was augmented by the use of AI.

BREAK IT DOWN!

This has been another eventful week for government in the United States…and it’s only Wednesday. Another GOP Congressman targeted by DJ Trump lost his re-election bid. Down goes Thomas Massie. The Kentucky solon, who lost last night, joined the five Indiana Senators who lost a couple of weeks ago, after also having been targeted by Trump. 

As an aside, Senator John Cornyn of Texas saw Trump throw his endorsement to his opponent, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. Most observers now cede next week’s runoff to Paxton, aided by Trump’s backing. While Paxton may win, his candidacy is not without concerns. He has previously overcome several controversies, including, impeachment, felony securities fraud allegations, which he ultimately settled, election integrity (attempt to overturn the 2020 Election) issues, and a marital/divorce scandal. These issues are not expected to derail his GOP runoff chances.  

Believe it or not, actual election matters are not the top line. Earlier this week, it was reported that Trump was dropping his $10 billion, that’s billion with a b, suit against his own Department of Justice. Instead of $10B, a $1.776 billion dollar settlement was reached, which will provide payouts to Trump allies, and others who have been impacted by “so-called” Biden law fare. 

Todd Blanche, Trump’s former personal criminal attorney, and current Acting Attorney General negotiated the settlement, and will select a 5-person panel to oversee the “1776 Fund.” While it remains unclear who will get money from what some are referring to as a self-dealing slush fund, Neither Trump, JD Vance, nor Blanche have ruled out the prospect that individuals who committed violent acts against law enforcement at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, and who on January 20, 2025 were granted a blanket pardon for their actions by Trump on the first day of his second term, will receive money from the settlement. 

That sounded like the top line. But then this happened. The Justice Department added an  addendum to its settlement with President Donald Trump. It immediately ignited controversy because it reportedly says the government is “forever barred and precluded” from pursuing certain tax examinations or claims against Donald Trump, his family, and his companies, involving returns filed before the settlement’s effective date. 

According to recent reporting by ABC News, CBS News, and NBC News, the addendum expands a broader agreement resolving Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his confidential tax information. That reporting suggests the deal reaches far beyond an ordinary settlement term because it appears to shut down not just currently pending matters, but also any claims that could have been raised concerning older Trump tax returns. Even with the Justice Department later saying the addendum applies only to existing audits and not future ones, the language has landed like a political and legal earthquake, especially because it concerns the sitting president and a tax agency meant to apply the law uniformly.

The backstory matters. Trump sued after an IRS contractor, Charles Littlejohn, admitted leaking tax return information belonging to Trump and other wealthy Americans to the press. It should be noted that Littlejohn is current serving a jail sentence related to the matter.

That breach created a serious privacy and accountability issue for the government. But critics argue that redressing an unlawful leak is not the same thing as granting a president sweeping protection from tax scrutiny. The question is not whether Trump had grounds to complain about the disclosure of his returns; plainly he did. The question is whether a settlement negotiated by a Justice Department led by his own administration can lawfully or appropriately insulate him, his family, and associated businesses from tax enforcement on prior filings. That is where the matter becomes far more significant than a simple damages dispute.

This is the nexus where both the broader settlement, and especially the addendum appears to earn the label self-dealing. The benefits do not inure just to Trump, but also to his family members and businesses. As one analyst noted, he sued himself, settled with himself, and is now paying himself. Trump supporters are quick to counter; Trump is not getting any of the money. 

Seriously? Stop playing! The addendum itself is undoubtedly worth millions. Think of all the past returns that will now not be reviewed. Don’t be ridiculous. Trump’s taxes have long drawn attention and at least one long-running audit could have carried a very substantial financial consequence. In that light, the addendum is not a symbolic gesture. It could amount to a durable shield against significant liability, which is why opponents see it as a direct challenge to principles of equal treatment under the law. “It’s A Great Deal…If You Can Get It!”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com. Find a new post each Wednesday.

To subscribe, click on Follow in the bottom right-hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated space, and click on “Sign me up.”

Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box. For more detailed information on a variety of aspects related to this post, consult search engines for more information on the subject.

This post was augmented by the use of AI.