Trump’s Lawyers Insist There Is ‘No Evidence’ of ‘Collusion or Fraud’ in His ‘Settlement With Myself’
President Donald Trump: ‘I need to come to an agreement with myself’ said to reporters a few days after filing a lawsuit against the IRS. He wasn’t kidding: January 29th caseThe claim, which alleges damages resulting from an IRS contractor’s illegal leak of tax returns, pitted Trump against an agency he oversees, which was represented by Justice Department lawyers who also responded to him.
As Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche put it, the president’s “deal” with himself announced On May 18, $1.8 billion in taxpayer money was included for alleged victims of the Biden administration’s “law enforcement and weaponization.” Also included protection He will be exempt from liability for tax violations and other federal crimes Trump or his family may have committed. Trump’s personal lawyers, not surprisingly, claim that this sweet deal is business as usual at the Justice Department. brief information They filed in the Southern District of Florida on Monday.
There is “no evidence” of collusion or fraud Trump v. IRSAlejandro Brito and two other attorneys told U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams last month. ordered gave a briefing on this issue. Trump’s lawyers say any suggestion that Trump used a sham trial as a pretext to obtain big favors for himself, his relatives and his supporters is “nothing more than speculation.”
Brito et al. The glaring conflicts of interest created by a case in which both parties were represented by lawyers working for Trump are overlooked. A move that further jeopardizes the Justice Department’s ability to defend the IRS. executive order The law, which Trump issued in February 2025, prohibits government lawyers from taking legal positions that conflict with those of the president.
This strange situation spurred Williams into action. question Whether the case involves a genuine dispute between the opposing parties, as is necessary for the proceeding of the case. After Williams ordered a briefing on this important issue by May 20, Trump withdrew his case two days before the deadline, eliminating the need to address it. However, in response to May 27 movement Williams by 35 former federal judges deep thinking “Whether the case should be reopened because the court found him a ‘victim of fraud.'”
These former justices did not have the authority to present their motions, Brito et al. claims, and Williams does not have the authority to reopen the case. Even so, they say, the most he could do would be to dismiss the case again after deciding there was no real “case or argument.” In their view, Williams would not have the authority to review the “settlement” under any circumstances, for which the Justice Department “has independent legal authority regardless of whether this lawsuit is filed.”
The Justice Department reached a “fully appropriate government settlement” after weighing the merits of Trump’s allegations and assessing the cost of defending against them, Brito and others wrote. claim. “Since the government can and routinely resolves claims with or without a defendant, it does not matter whether Movants believes this case presents a solid case or argument,” they write. “The government’s decision to settle rather than litigate does not, by itself, render the underlying allegations fraudulent or the case secret.” They add that “the validity of the agreement does not depend on the jurisdiction of this Court over the dismissed case, and the dismissal does not arise from collusion with anyone.”
Whether or not Trump’s lawyers are correct about Williams’ authority to intervene at this point, their claim that there’s nothing to see here is based entirely on cheerful reassurances and hilarious misdirection. For example, they highlight that “three of the four Plaintiffs” (Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, and the Trump Organization). Negative The president of the United States and even “employees of the federal government.” “When private plaintiffs sue the United States for violations of law,” they say, litigation is “contentious in nature.”
Trump, his sons and his company claimed that IRS contractor Charles Littlejohn’s unauthorized release of tax returns caused them “at least” $10 billion in losses. In addition to providing an unreasonable estimate of the injury they suffered, legal deadline Making such claims means the case is doomed to fail from the start.
Although Brito et al. They don’t mention this fatal flaw, citing another obstacle to the case. Trump’s main claim was based on: 26USC7431This gives taxpayers the authority to sue for damages if an “officer or employee of the United States” unlawfully discloses tax information. Trump’s lawyers acknowledge that “the question of whether Mr. Littlejohn qualifies as an ‘officer or employee’ of the United States and not merely as a contractor is a moot issue requiring the application of joint employer analysis under federal common law.”
This problem has been solved somehow case He said Citadel CEO Kenneth Griffin, another billionaire whose tax returns Littlejohn leaked, also filed in the Southern District of Florida in December 2022. Griffin applied amended complaint Nearly a year later, after Littlejohn was publicly identified as the leaker. Unlike Trump, Griffin filed his lawsuit within two years of learning of the disclosure, as required by Section 7431. Also unlike Trump, Griffin has faced Justice Department lawyers willing to refute his claims.
Government lawyers defended Littlejohn’s failure to qualify as a federal employee makes Section 7431 unenforceable. They also argued that the private remedy authorized by Section 7431 preempted a claim under the Agreement. Privacy ActAnother law Griffin invokes.
In April 2024, U.S. District Judge Robert N. Scola Jr. reigned That Griffin failed to adequately state his Privacy Act claim. He declined to deny Griffin’s claim under Section 7431 but added: “We will see over time whether the evidence ultimately supports the complaint’s allegations that Littlejohn was an IRS employee.” Gryphon fell His lawsuit was filed two months later in exchange for an apology from the IRS.
The Ministry of Justice also presented a similar defense Safe Harbor International – Booz Allen HamiltonAnother lawsuit triggered by Littlejohn’s leaks argued that Section 7431 does not apply because Littlejohn is not an IRS employee. Lydia Kay Griggsby, a federal judge in Maryland, in April 2026 we agreed The government’s contention is that the law applies only to “false statements made by employees and officers of the United States.” But it declined to deny the Section 7431 claims, stating that “the parties disagree as to whether Mr. Littlejohn is an employee of the United States.”
Brito et al. quote Griffin v. IRS By showing that Trump’s case raises serious questions worthy of judicial consideration. However, a comparison of this situation and Safe Harbor International with Trump v. IRS strengthens the impression of collusion. While the Justice Department vigorously disputed the plaintiffs’ claims in the other two cases, it did not even attempt to mount a defense against Trump’s lawsuit.
From January 29, when Trump filed the lawsuit, to May 18, when he “settled” the case with extremely generous terms, the Justice Department was helpless. In fact, Trump’s lawyers emphasize this point to support their claim that Trump was free to drop his case without Williams’ permission. “No Defendant has filed an answer, motion for summary judgment, or any other countervailing defense at any point in this litigation.” But they say the “absence of filed statements” and the government’s “decision not to assert existing defenses in the parallel case” do not count as evidence of collusion.
“The government’s decision not to pursue every available defense is a decision to sue, not a sign of fraud,” Brito and others wrote. to say. “Defendants in civil cases routinely choose not to challenge certain claims for strategic, economic, or organizational reasons, including the entirely rational conclusion that the cost of defense exceeds the cost of settlement. The fact that the IRS may have identified applicable defenses in memorandums does not mean that it is obligated to assert them, and a decision not to do so does not give rise to a conclusion of collusion.”
The “cost of the settlement” in this case was $1.8 billion, plus any money the IRS might have obtained by pursuing claims against Trump or his family that the “settlement” barred. Judging by a single IRS conflict Regarding Trump’s reported job losses, the value of abandoned claims could exceed $100 million. Given these circumstances, it is not credible to suggest that the “cost of defense” would be higher than the “cost of resolution.”
Brito et al. We get closer to the truth when they say the Justice Department may have thrown in the towel “for institutional reasons.” But the most obvious institutional reason is that Justice Department lawyers serve at Trump’s pleasure and are therefore eager to please him. This doesn’t seem very “hostile”.
Brito et al. likewise to say that the “scope of agreement” does not support the conclusion of collusion. But they don’t attempt to explain how a sweeping immunity deal for Trump’s friends and supporters and a $1.8 billion slush fund are logically connected to his allegations against the IRS. Nor do they explain why the Justice Department thought these conditions were necessary to resolve a fatally flawed case. And they avoid any comparison between Trump’s benefits and settlements in similar cases involving non-presidential taxpayers. Griffin and Trump ultimately apologized, but Trump got much more than that.
“The government, under the leadership of the Department of Justice, routinely takes different positions on different cases based on the particular facts, parties, and value of the settlement offered,” Brito and others wrote. Notes. “Case decisions are made on a case-by-case basis.”
These bland observations don’t even explain why the Justice Department’s “case decisions” in this case were in favor of the plaintiffs. Trump did not have to deal with the objections that plaintiffs routinely face in similar cases, and he received benefits that were out of proportion to the legal merit of his claims. His lawyers would like us to believe that the outcome had nothing to do with Trump’s status as the boss of his so-called rivals.
Post Trump’s Lawyers Insist There’s ‘No Evidence’ of ‘Collusion or Fraud’ in Trump’s ‘Deal with Me’ appeared for the first time reason.com.
