Lawfare Daily: Attorney General Blanche’s Purported Waiver of Pres. Trump’s Past Tax Liabilities

Group health insurance can challenge company budgets with large and unpredictable rate increases. Now, a new form of employer coverage called an ICRA, or ICRA, can help. ICRAs make health plan expenses more predictable and affordable by tapping into a much larger risk pool. That means businesses know what to expect and what to budget. If you're tired of expensive surprises, plan on something predictable. Plan on an ICRA. Learn more at Mbetterhealth.com slash ICRA. There's never been a better time to get outside and experience the benefits of nature. Discover nearby trails and explore the outdoors with all trails.

Download the free app today and find your outside. The acting AG has issued this addendum that in our view and based on what's publicly known, he did not have authority to issue. And so the IRS is not obligated to follow through on that, but we can imagine there's immense political pressure on the IRS to act. It's the Lawfare podcast. I'm Roger Parloff, senior editor at Lawfare, and I'm with Brandon DeBoe and Kelsey Merrick of NYU's Tax Law Center.

Congressional action is really important here, both to undo the agreement of the audit release, but also to use their oversight and investigatory powers to find out exactly what happened here. Today we're talking about Attorney General Todd Blanche's purported waiver of President Trump's past tax liabilities, and what can be done about that. Before we go further, I'm going to ask you each to introduce yourselves and also to explain what the tax law center is. So, Brandon? Sure. I'm Brandon DeBoe. I'm a senior attorney advisor and policy director at the Tax Law Center at NYU Law.

And I'm Kelsey Merrick. I'm the director of litigation here at the Tax Law Center at NYU Law. We're a nonpartisan organization that's focused on protecting the integrity of the federal tax system. Many of our staff come from major law firms as well as IRS and DOJ. Most of our work is technical, think research papers, technical comment letters, amicus briefs, and the like. We work closely with practitioners and former government officials, and our advisory board includes former officials from Republican and Democratic administrations. Over the last couple years, we've closely examined the laws on taxpayer privacy and political interference in the tax system. We've also launched a project on remaking tax administration, which will focus on creating an executable vision for rebuilding and reimagining how the tax system is administered and developing concrete blueprints to achieve that. So when news began to break on this topic, we were well positioned to examine these issues,

to educate the public about the potential consequences, and to detail steps that should be taken to block this unprecedented deal. Okay. Today we'll be discussing the portion of the settlement of President Trump's $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS that does not involve the 1.776 billion anti-weaponization. fund. That's the part that was created the next day in the addendum on May 19th, where Attorney General Todd Blanche purported to, among other things, drop any pending tax audits or investigations of Trump and to waive any past tax liabilities.

Brandon, earlier this month, you called upon Congress to, quote, stop the administration from implementing the Sweetheart Deal to End Audits and to investigate potential criminal violations of the laws against political interference in the tax system. So Broad Brush, why did you do that? We're deeply concerned about the potential abuse of the tax and legal system in this case and how it could undermine the rule of law. The acting AG's addendum was, entered into without authority. The acting AG does not have authority to issue that release unilaterally. So on June 2nd, with the acting AG stating that the administration is not pursuing the fund, but that it does intend to pursue these extraordinary audit protections, we became increasingly

concerned that if Congress doesn't act, it will get even more difficult to stop this audit release as a practical matter. It's still possible that the IRS could choose to not act to carry it out, or that a future IRS could try to unwind it, or that there could be actions in the courts. But the best path forward is decisive action by Congress right now. We've also become increasing concerned based on public reporting that there could have been potential violations of crucial protections against political interference that help ensure the tax laws are administered neutrally. And Congress has built these protections on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis over decades. And our view is that any potential violations warrant investigation, including by Congress.

Okay, and I should say that for those interested in this topic, the Tax Law Center has some articles on this topic, which are very useful, in my opinion. Brandon and Kelsey also wrote a useful and informative article on just security called What Congress should do about the president's sweetheart deal in Trump versus IRS. Also, before going further, I do think our readers, our listeners, are familiar. with the outlines of the lawsuit. Trump brought the $10 billion lawsuit and the settlement, but it might be worth just a very quick timeline to get us up to that May 19th addendum, if one of you can provide that. So this suit, Trump v. IRS, was filed back in January of this year, when the president, two of his sons and one of his entities sued the IRS for $10 billion.

In the Southern District of Florida, asserting claims under Internal Revenue Code Section 7431, this section provides a private right of action for civil damages for the unauthorized disclosure of taxpayer information. This is because tax returns are confidential under Internal Revenue Code Section 6103, and that confidentiality extends to the president. As lawfare readers might be familiar already, the president's tax returns among several others were leaked by an IRS contractor named Charles Littlejohn back during the first Trump administration in 2019 and 2020. Little John was then prosecuted by the Biden DOJ and sentenced to the maximum prison term of five years under the Internal Revenue Code. So fast forward again to this year

with Trump's civil damages suit. In April, his attorneys filed a consent motion to stay the case while the parties engaged in settlement discussions. The government hadn't made any appearance, and so the judge responded sua sponte, requesting briefing from the parties and court appointed amici on whether there was actually a case or controversy here that would give the court jurisdiction in the first place. And as we now know, the plaintiffs dismissed the case with prejudice.

Before that briefing deadline, the government never made an appearance in the case. And on May 18th, the day, DOJ announced the settlement of the suit and the establishment of the so-called anti-weaponization fund. And then the following day, May 19th, acting attorney general Todd Blanche had signed a purported addendum that included this extraordinarily broad release of claims that the government had or might have had against not just the plaintiffs, but also any Trump affiliates. And that purported addendum specifically mentions that it extends to tax returns. Okay, great. And of course, the anti-weaponization part has the government has said it's not going to, or Todd Blanche has said he's not

going forward with that and a judge has at least preliminarily enjoined that from going forward. A lot of people ask me and other lawfare people, what about the other half? Is somebody going to sue to block that? And I take it your position is that a lawsuit is not really the best way to approach that prong of the so-called settlement, that it's either inappropriate or unnecessary? What would you say? You know, first, I would just observe that the fund itself is still an open question, notwithstanding the Attorney General's comments that they're backing away from the fund, folks might have seen just a few days ago the Department of Justice filed a motion in the

court that hasn't joined the fund saying, we're not submitting any more declarations. whatever has been said should be good enough for you, Judge, to say that we're not moving forward. So, you know, one, that's still an open question. But, you know, back to the audit release here and what can be done about that, you know, I think it's definitely fair to say that our view is congressional intervention is really imperative here. I think, you know, it could be challenging for someone to bring a suit based just on this audit release. You know, one way that could happen, for example, is by someone who's a Trump affiliate or claiming to be a Trump affiliate, if they're under IRS audit, they might raise this May 19th order as a defense to that IRS action. But rather than, I think, waiting for someone who's potentially interested in effectuating this waiver to bring some kind of claim, it's really better for Congress to take action now to send a very clear and legally binding signal to the IRS.

that this is not an order that they have to follow or effectuate. Brendan, anything you want to add to that? Yeah, I think Kelsey put it really well. I would just add that to the last point about where we are right now, the acting AG has issued this addendum that in our view, and based on what's publicly known, he did not have authority to issue. And so the IRS is not obligated to follow through on that. But we can imagine there's immense political pressure on the IRS to act.

Members of Congress in both parties have expressed serious concerns over this extraordinary audit release, and they could, by passing legislation, both nullify this specific order, making it crystal clear that the IRS doesn't need to act, and also implement structural reforms that would prevent any president or any administration from pursuing a similar approach in the future. And this would resolve the audit issue right now quickly before the IRS takes any actions. Once the IRS takes actions, if they do, there are still potential states. to unwinding the agreement, but they become much more challenging. And so that's why we think it's important for Congress to act quickly. Okay. And one other thing that we probably ought to mention

is that this is not apparently an abstract question. There seems to be pretty strong reporting that there has been a tax audit, a very significant tax audit, perhaps involving 100 potentially $100 million in liability for Trump. Can one of you discuss that? Sure. We won't get into the details. I think we know as much as you and your listeners about the status of this audit based on reporting, especially from the New York Times.

But according to that reporting, the president has been under audit for at least one particular tax return for over a decade. It relates to his potentially attempting to take double tax deductions, to double dip on particular deductions. And according to the Times, the amount in dispute may now exceed over $100 million. The Times has reported that that audit recently entered into settlement agreements shortly before this release was signed. And so, you know, based on that public information, it sounds like if that reporting is accurate, that this case has a lot at stake in just one particular matter, and that it was unresolved in the lead up to the acting attorney general's purported release.

And just add one other detail. I think the Times has also reported in 2024 that Eric Trump himself had acknowledged that a tax audit was active. So it sounds like pretty strong. This isn't just, you know, anonymous sources. Suppose hypothetically at the IRS pencils are put down at this point. point, maybe in reliance on Todd Blanche's order. And then a new administration comes in and somebody wants to say, let's finish the audit. Is there a civil statute of limitations on tax audits that

we need to worry about? Or does that not exist? There is a statute of limitations for tax audits. The standard rule is three years, but it is longer in particular cases. If there's severe understatement of tax liability, for example, then it's six years. It is also extended if there is fraud. And it can be extended, as has likely been the case based on the reporting with respect to the Trump audit. it can be extended by the parties agreeing to extend it while they work out the details and resolution of the audit. So there is a potential statute of limitations here issue here, although we don't know the exact nature of the dispute between the president and the IRS,

and so don't know exactly when the statute of limitations might run. But this is also something that Congress can address. and it can address that by passing a law that, for example, says any claims that are open between the president and certain other officials in the administration automatically have the statute of limitations extended past that person's time in office plus an additional maybe two years or pick your number. but Congress could ensure that there's not a statute of limitations issue with respect to audits of the president. Let's now go to the criminal statutes that might be implicated here. This is one of the more interesting parts of your articles. There's at least two statutes in the IRS code that are particularly relevant.

one is 26 U.S.C. 7217. Can one of you discuss how that works? Section 7217 was enacted on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis after President Nixon tried to use the IRS to target his political enemies. In Section 7217 makes it unlawful for the president, vice president, White House staff, and certain other political officials, including the Treasury Secretary, to directly or indirectly, request that the IRS terminate an audit of any particular taxpayer. Violations of Section 7217 carry serious criminal penalties, including up to five years imprisonment. That's an unusual statute in that it explicitly mentions the president as one of the people that is covered.

It also has an oddity, which it says one of the people that is not covered is the Attorney General. And of course, that's the sole person who signed this document, which is strange. It's supposed to be a settlement. But the other side doesn't touch it. Stan Woodward, who signed the anti-weaponization fund. part of this. He also doesn't sign this tax part of it. What is the statute of limitations on this provision? Section 7217 carries a three-year statute of limitations. And you're correct, Roger, that there is an exception for the attorney general here. Section 7217 doesn't apply

That doesn't mean there hasn't been a violation of Section 7217 because of how it applies with respect to direct and indirect interference by the president or other White House officials, for example. So here we have New York Times reporting that has details about how the president discussed his audits in circumstances related to this lawsuit and that his advisors received drafts of the settlement, which suggests that officials like the president who are covered by Section 7217 may have used the acting attorney general's purported order to influence the IRS with respect to these audits. there's also the possibility of criminal conspiracy that could apply to the Section 7217 violations

or the possibility that the acting attorney general was an accessory to a violation of Section 7217 here. I see. Another interesting thing I'll just, listeners might be interested in it as another unusual aspect of this statute is it's built right into the statute, the second subsection B, that IRS officers and employees have an obligation to report such a request if they witness it. And in fact, if they don't, they themselves are subject to the same penalties up to five years criminal. It's a very unusual statute. I'll also mention the New York Times reporting here, where long a lot on the New York Times as a group led by Alan Foyer.

They said that the people involved in negotiating this, well, obviously Todd Blanche signed it. The private lawyers included Boris Epstein or Boris Epstein, who is a former client of Todd Blanche's also. Todd Blanche's current top deputy, Trent McCotter, a private lawyer named Daniel Epstein, who works, who represented Trump. We don't know that all of them worked on this aspect of it. And, of course, that's just the reporting. And I guess the OLC head, T. Eliot Gaser, blessed a portion of this. That might have been the anti-weaponization fund. Boris Epstein is usually described as a senior counsel to the president.

I don't know if that's a member of the executive office of the president. Is he an applicable person under 7217, as you understand it? I don't know his employment status either, and so I can't opine on that. In general, the White House officials, any employee of the executive office of the president is a covered official, so it would depend on his capacity. Okay. Okay. And then there's a second statute, at least in play, 26 U.S.C. 72112. Can one of you describe that one and how it works? Section 7212 makes it a crime to interfere in a particular tax audit or investigation either corruptly or by force or threat of force. Section 7212 covers everyone. So both government officials and private citizens, it carries

a serious criminal penalties, including a maximum three-year term of imprisonment. And what's the statute of limitations? The statute of limitations on Section 7212 is six years under the tax code. Okay, and I interrupted you. You were going to add something? I was just going to add that here the reporting suggests that those involved in negotiating the settlement were aware of at least one pending audit of President Trump, the one that we've talked about with likely more than $100 million in dispute. And so that audits could be what is required under Supreme Court doctrine to meet the standard for. 7212 that there was intent to corruptly interfere in a particular tax audit or investigation. So that's a particular element of that statute. You need to know about a particular audit or

investigation that's ongoing. Right, that you're trying to influence. Yeah. And that's what Brandon mentioned with the Supreme Court precedent there. It has to be a specific audit. It can't just be general interference in an IRS administration for purposes of 7212. All right. Everyone's excited these days about AI. I'm no exception. I've spent a lot of time vibe coding recently. It's pretty exciting.

You've got the smarter future. Everything's connected. Your open AI or clawed instance can access everything. But here's the question. What happens when it all breaks? what happens when the system just doesn't work anymore and you're totally dependent on it and you don't have anything that AI can't touch? It's an increasingly digital world and you don't own anything real. You only own stuff that your AI can access. Does that sound like a nightmare?

Does it sound like all of your wealth exists only on a number on a screen? What happens when you suddenly wake up in the morning and you're locked out of your bank account? You don't have any cash. There's no card that can help you. And if this sounds like your nightmare and it's going to happen eventually, think about why smart Americans like yourself are turning to noble gold investments. to own something real that AI can't touch. You know, the kind of thing you can hold in your hand

or put in a tax-advantaged retirement account. I'm talking about physical gold. You know, a coin, a bar. It doesn't live on a server. It can't be frozen with a keystroke and it can't be erased by code because it's in a safe somewhere. So if you've been wondering about whether

Gold or silver, for that matter, should be part of your portfolio. This is exactly the kind of moment when it makes sense to speak with somebody who understands the market. Noble Gold Investments has been helping investors protect their savings with physical gold and silver for nearly a decade. There are a bunch of things that make them different from other people who do business in these areas. And one is the White Glove Service.

they provide white glove service from start to finish. They walk you through how physical gold and silver work, whether you're considering a direct purchase or rolling over part of an IRA. This affects not just customers, even podcasters, you know, when I started doing podcast advertising with them, the head of the company, a guy named Colin, called me up. We had a call, and he talked to me about why he's passionate about this.

It's different from other companies. Everything is transparent. They're not pushy. It's not a high-pressure sales situation. They explain exactly what you're buying and why. They've built a reputation on being trustworthy and reliable. You get the answers you need and you stop guessing and you decide with confidence about owning something that actually is tangible. So, visit noblegoldinvestments.

slash lawfare. That's noblegoldinvestments.com slash lawfare. And when you open a new qualified account, Noble gold investments will send you a free 10 ounce silver bar stamped with the American map and 250 years of independence available for qualified gold IRA accounts and cash purposes. That's noblegoldinvestments.com slash lawfare.

Future readying your tech stack, software define it to refine and redefine. With all systems at hand, you update anything and everything from wherever you are. Transform the everyday with Siemens. You're a pro at running your life, at committing to your workout, at showing up every day. At Bombus, we're pros too. Pros at making socks. Our sport assortment has specialized socks for whatever sport you're committed to. Running, hiking, golf, Pilates, and so much more.

Made with sweatwicking yarns, blister fighting details, and targeted art support. Bombas sport is pro-level socks from the pros of socks. For another pro, you. Go to bombus.com and use code audio for 20% off your first purchase. That's bombus.com and use code audio. We all belong outside. We're drawn to nature. It calls to us.

Whether it's the recorded sounds of the ocean, we doze off to, or the succulents that adorn our homes. Nature makes all of our lives richer, calmer, and frankly, better. Despite all this, we often go about our busy lives removed from it, but the outdoors is closer than we realize. With all trails, you can discover trails nearby or trails worth traveling to and explore confidently with offline maps and on-trail navigation. whether you're looking for a laid-back walk with family

or something more adventurous to get your heart pumping. All Trails gives you the tools you need to get out there and find your outside. Download the free app today and make the most of your summer with All Trails.

Okay, and to the extent that we're talking about, since one of the people involved here is President Trump, we get immediately into immunity questions, and I don't know how much you all have thought about that and whether this is an official act, and if it's not an official act, whether you could ever overcome the evidentiary hurdles to bring a case against him. Do you have thoughts on that, either of you? I mean, assuming he did something wrong. Right, right. And, you know, I mean, We have some thoughts. You know, I don't know that they're particularly enlightened.

You know, our bread and butter is Title 26 of the U.S. Code and tax administration. But of course, we're well aware of the immunity ruling by the Supreme Court in Trump v. U.S. And I think there are a lot of open questions in terms of just how broad that is. Is it absolute immunity? Is it presumptive and rebuttable immunity? You know, I think this is really uncharted territory. and as with so much of what we're discussing today, truly unprecedented. But I think we can observe that, you know, to your question about whether this is an official act,

I think it's pretty difficult to make the argument that resolving the president's private claims and his personal tax liability would fall under any definition of official acts. But, you know, of course, it's just hard for us, I think, sitting here today to predict how that might might come out in the future. And in terms of, you know, the ability to uncover any evidence of wrongdoing, again, I think this just goes back to our position that congressional action is really important here, both to undo the agreement in the audit release, but also to use their oversight and investigatory powers to find out exactly what happened here. And Brandon, do you agree with that? I assume that getting to the bottom of what happened here,

will itself run into headlong into a lot of privilege issues, executive privilege, attorney-client privilege, I'm sure it may not be practical to pursue. How do you feel, Brandon? I agree with Kelsey's analysis and also that, as Kelsey suggested, there are still so many remaining questions, including who specifically was involved in what elements of the settlement negotiations. I underscore that in addition to Congress needing to investigate and having the ability to use its oversight powers to bring the facts to light here. Additionally, the provision you mentioned, Roger, requiring reporting to the Treasury Inspector General for tax administration, is really crucial. And I think that's evidence that when Congress set up this regime, Congress thought

it was really important that the facts of these violations be reported and that there would be investigation. And so that responsibility for the IRS employees, if they feel they've received an improper request and unlawful, you know, politically influenced request, to make a referral to TIGTA is also very important in that TIGTA could then investigate and bring to light potential violations and the facts that we need to learn more to determine the legal status. That's another pathway that those facts could be developed. And you mentioned TICTA. That's the Treasury IG Inspector General for Tax. Administration, correct.

Administration, okay. So really you do focus on Congress and what they should do. And one thing I take it you think they should do is hold an investigation, try to find out what happened here. But what are your other legislative proposals? Sure. In addition to oversight, we think it's important for Congress to take several

actions to block the release of claims and at guardrails so that powerful officials in future administrations cannot try to effectively close their own audits. The first step, as I mentioned before, is simply nullifying the acting attorney general's purported release of claims, including tax audits. The second is preventing the IRS from entering into final closing agreements with the president and other powerful officials while they're in office. The IRS can enter into a closing agreement that is signed by both an authorized IRS official and the taxpayer that conclusively resolves the matters in dispute and detailed by that closing agreement unless there's a showing of fraud, malfeasance, or misrepresentation of a material fact.

But that's determined by statute. And Congress could, for example, say that while a covered official is in office, the IRS cannot enter into a closing agreement. with that official, or they could say that such closing agreements do not receive the finality that's afforded to other closing agreements. So that's the second step. The third step is extending the statute of limitations so that a future IRS can effectively pursue audits of the president and his affiliates. And we got into this a little bit early. but just to underscore that Congress could choose to ensure that a future IRS can effectively examine the returns of the president. For example, you know, if a closing agreement has been set aside due to fraud, malfeasance, or a misrepresentation of material fact,

that the statute of limitations is automatically extended in such circumstances, or that the statute of limitations is automatically extended beyond the term of the president or other specified officials. The fourth step that we think Congress should take is to require additional reporting of key information to ensure that it becomes public and to facilitate oversight here. For example, beyond TIGTA, the inspector general, requiring TIGTA to make reports to congressional committees that could then have information to investigate and also to release information that is not confidential publicly. So the public has an understanding that there's been a report of potential improper interference.

So that legislative step would facilitate oversight and investigation. So when you mention closing agreement, I take it that means that in an ordinary audit, the IRS and the taxpayer might reach a genuine agreement. settlement, or the IRS might decide they were mistaken that there is nothing there. The tax liability is correct. And then they would enter a closing agreement to finalize and make sure that this doesn't get relitigated later. So here, you're hoping for congressional action before a closing agreement might take place in Trump's case. Is that a basically what you're saying? Yes, that's a core component of our recommendation is for Congress

to act as quickly as possible. Congress could make this provision retroactive to the beginning of the year, the beginning of this administration, or another date so as to try to ensure that there couldn't be a final closing agreement with the president or his affiliates who are covered by the purported release. That might implicate some of the issues that you and Kelsey were discussing earlier. But the best path for Congress to ensure that the IRS doesn't act and can't act with finality would be to block the IRS's ability to enter into a closing agreement before it happens. And that sort of retroactivity you think is lawful and there wouldn't be a problem with that? You know, I think, you know, retroactivity is not necessarily a problem for Congress

acting here. It does potentially raise a due process concern, but in the tax context, courts have found that Congress has pretty broad latitude to make retroactive changes to the tax code. So I think Congress is in pretty good footing considering court precedent with respect to that. And even if, you know, there were a future challenge to any of these congressional laws, for example, again, if a Trump affiliate or someone else under audit who thinks they get protection under the May 19th order raises as a defense, again, you know, we think the court should be able to, you know, not even look to the act of Congress in order to, you know, make a determination that the May 19th order wasn't valid to begin with.

So the problem, of course, with any congressional, hoping for any congressional action is that they don't seem to act very often. and especially in ways that displease this president. So maybe what Kelsey was getting at is the next, well, maybe you disagree with me about that. Maybe you think that this might be an exception. But otherwise, I think we should talk about what Kelsey was getting to was if nothing does change, what does the next administration do if it wants to resume this? tax audit? What do events look like then?

So I think with respect to whether Congress will act or not, I would just observe that here there's been substantial bipartisan criticism, certainly of the fund, which the administration did back away from after public and congressional backlash, at least for now, but also of the audit agreement specifically, and members of both parties have introduced amendments or legislation that would take some of the steps that we've been discussing. So that doesn't mean that it will get enacted, but I do think there's bipartisan concern here. In terms of what happens under a future administration, that depends on the steps that the IRS takes now. If the IRS doesn't take any steps to effectuate the acting AG's purported order,

then a future administration doesn't need to respect or follow that purported order because it was lawless. if the IRS follows through and, for example, enters into closing agreements with the president and his affiliates, then the question would become, was that agreement entered into with a showing of fraud, malfeasance, or misrepresentation of material fact, that would be a threshold question regarding whether a future administration could reopen and decide to continue to pursue that audit, that would be the question the IRS would need to consider. And when you say that Attorney General Todd Blanche's order was lawless, just to be clear,

you mean, is it because it was only him signing it? Is it because he's not Treasury Secretary, he's not IRS? he's what what makes it lawless yeah doj does not have unilateral authority to agree to drop irs audits DOJ's settlement authority in tax cases only extends to matters that are referred to DOJ and so this is under section 7122 of the tax code so here the only relevant matter that was referred to DOJ based on what's publicly available is President Trump's taxpayer privacy lawsuit. So DOJ's settlement authority would be limited to those claims, and DOJ doesn't have freestanding authority to just settle any audits with a particular taxpayer without a referral,

let alone to settle an undefined set of claims, including tax claims for an undefined set of affiliates of the person who was involved in a lawsuit. So let's assume that Congress does nothing, and this goes forward in that posture, what will the impact be on trust and the tax system? fairness going forward? I think there could be a really unfortunate negative impact on trust. Some of the laws that we've been talking about are specifically designed to ensure neutrality and that the tax laws apply the same to everyone without regard to politics or other characteristics that should be irrelevant. And so the idea that that, that a different set of rules apply to different taxpayers could erode trust in the tax system. And that is especially concerning because the tax system is built on voluntary compliance

for the overwhelming majority of revenue collection. And that system depends on taxpayers believing in the code and that they, should fulfill their federal tax responsibilities without the need for intervention from the IRS. And this is part of a broader story, which is that those protections that Congress has been enacted, those guardrails designed to prevent politicization and to protect taxpayer privacy, have been breaking down under this administration. And so this is another unfortunate step that is putting pressure on those protections and that could erode a fundamental aspect of the tax system.

Well, I think we'll have to leave it there. But thank you very much for joining us, both Brandon and Kelsey. It's a very important topic. I appreciate you coming on. Thank you for having us. Thanks for having us, Roger.

The Lawfare podcast is produced by the Lawfare Institute. If you want to support the show and listen ad-free, you can become a Lawfare material supporter at lawfaremedia.org slash support. Supporters also get access to special events and other bonus content we don't share anywhere else. If you enjoy the podcast, please rate and review us wherever you listen. It really does help. and be sure to check out our other shows, including Rational Security, Allies, The Aftermath, and Escalation, our latest Lawfare Presents Podcast series about the war in Ukraine.

You can also find all our written work at lawfaremedia.org. The podcast is edited by Jen Pacha, with audio engineering by Kara Shillen of Goat Rodeo. Our theme song is from Alibi Music. As always, thanks for listening.

Hi, this is Elise Huve from TED Talks Daily, and this episode is brought to you by Ambetter Health. For many employers and brokers, group health insurance means unpredictable costs and plans that try to fit everyone but end up fitting no one. A model called ICRA is changing that. Employers set a fixed contribution. Employees pick the health plan that works for them, their family, their doctors, their budget. Predictable for the business, personal for the people. That's a better kind of coverage. Get coverage you control. Find out if an ICRA is right for you at ambetterhealth.com.