Expressing the sense of the Senate that President Trump's lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service, the resulting settlement from that lawsuit, the purported “Anti-Weaponization Fund”, and the puported grant of immunity from tax investigations to the plaintiffs in President Trump's lawsuit, should be rejected, equal protection arguments by others with similar claims should be forestalled, and this settlement should not serve as a precedent and should never be repeated.

Expressing the sense of the Senate that President Trump's lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service, the resulting settlement from that lawsuit, the purported “Anti-Weaponization Fund”, and the puported grant of immunity from tax investigations to the plaintiffs in President Trump's lawsuit, should be rejected, equal protection arguments by others with similar claims should be forestalled, and this settlement should not serve as a precedent and should never be repeated.

Whereas, between 2019 and 2020, an Internal Revenue Service (referred to in this preamble as the “IRS”) contractor disclosed the tax information of hundreds of thousands of individuals and other tax entities, including President Donald Trump;

Whereas, on January 29, 2026, President Trump, his sons, Eric Trump and Donald Trump, Jr., and the Trump Organization filed a lawsuit based on these disclosures against the IRS and the Department of the Treasury, both of which Trump, as the sitting President, controls;

Whereas President Trump sought $10,000,000,000 in damages in his lawsuit, even though the other individuals who sued the Federal Government for the same reason generally received no monetary compensation, such as Kenneth Griffin, who received only an apology from the IRS;

Whereas President Trump was free, during the statute of limitations period when he was a private citizen, to bring an improper tax disclosure lawsuit seeking a reasonable remedy;

Whereas President Trump did not pursue this lawsuit until well after the 2-year statute of limitations period for such improper tax disclosure claims had expired;

Whereas, on May 18, 2026, President Trump and the Department of Justice that he controls announced that they had agreed to a purported “settlement” of the lawsuit, under which the Federal Government would establish an “Anti-Weaponization Fund” to provide nearly $1,800,000,000 in taxpayer payouts to individuals who President Trump deemed to have “suffered weaponization and lawfare”, including rioters who stormed the Capitol and attacked law enforcement on January 6, 2021;

Whereas, on May 19, 2026, the day after the announcement of the settlement, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche issued a unilateral “addendum” to the settlement that purported to immunize President Trump, his family, his companies, and his “affiliates” from IRS investigations, audits, or claims pertaining to any of their previous tax returns or other tax-related actions;

Whereas our Constitution affords all people “equal protection of the laws”;

Whereas there is no reason that President Trump and the other plaintiffs in his lawsuit are entitled to special treatment different from others harmed in the same illegal disclosure of tax information;

Whereas, if the purported settlement with President Trump is allowed to stand, the principle of equal protection of the laws would give all victims of the same illegal tax disclosure an argument to claim the same immunity over retrospective tax audit investigations of their own filings;

Whereas affording such immunity to hundreds of thousands of individuals and other tax entities would likely cost the Federal Government millions, and perhaps even billions, of dollars in lost revenue;

Whereas there is no credible argument that all victims of the illegal disclosure should receive immunity covering all retrospective tax audit investigations; and

Whereas the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida held that President Trump’s lawsuit was “non-adversarial, collusive, and jurisdictionally improper” and thus “was brought for an improper purpose” because “the [L]ead Plaintiff, President Trump, directs and controls the Defendants”, the IRS, and the Treasury Department within the executive branch of which he is the head: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that President Trump’s lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service and the resulting settlement, the purported “Anti-Weaponization Fund”, and the purported grant of immunity from tax investigations to the plaintiffs in President Trump’s lawsuit, should be rejected, equal protection arguments by others with similar claims should be forestalled, and this settlement should not serve as a precedent and should never be repeated.