Topline
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent sparred with Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday as lawmakers had their first opportunity to ask Bessent about the IRS’s settlement with President Donald Trump—and the treasury secretary refused to explain his agency’s decision to shield Trump and his sons from IRS audits and let them avoid legal liability.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent testifies during a Senate Committee on Finance hearing on Capitol Hill on June 3.
Getty Images
Key Facts
Bessent testified to the Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday, one day after Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche confirmed a planned $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization fund,” one of two provisions in Trump’s settlement with the IRS, was officially dead.
The other provision in Trump’s IRS settlement prohibits the government from prosecuting or suing the president and his eldest sons for actions that took place before the settlement, and Blanche suggested Tuesday that part of the agreement is still in effect.
Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., the committee’s ranking member, attacked Bessent over the agreement Wednesday, calling it “an abuse of the IRS that goes way beyond anything we’ve seen in the past” and asking Bessent about its status and how the agreement was reached.
Bessent refused to answer any questions about the agreement, saying only that he couldn’t comment due to “ongoing litigation” and referring further questions to the Justice Department—sparking ire from Wyden and other Democrats, who accused Bessent of “dodging questions” and intentionally avoiding talking about the controversial settlement.
Bessent also lashed out at Wyden for attacking him over the agreement, claiming the Democratic senator “mendaciously slammed the Treasury Department” in order to deflect from his son Adam Wyden’s appearance in the Epstein files, which revealed he met with Jeffrey Epstein in 2016.
Chief Critic
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., said Wednesday that Bessent’s refusal to answer basic questions about the settlement agreement “just makes no sense at all,” pointing to his longtime experience as an attorney, adding he has “some sense of what is protected” under attorney-client privilege. “I think it’s completely inappropriate to have this game of dodge ‘em be pursued without any consequences.”
Surprising Fact
The one question Bessent did answer Wednesday regarding the IRS settlement was on whether he knew Trump would sue the IRS before the lawsuit was filed, with the treasury secretary only responding, “I did not.”
What Does The Settlement Agreement Say?
The immunity provision of Trump’s IRS settlement states the federal government is “forever barred” and from prosecuting or bringing civil claims against Trump, his two eldest sons and the Trump Organization—the plaintiffs in the IRS suit—and “affiliated individuals” based on allegations that “have been or could have been asserted” by the time the settlement was reached. The agreement specifically singles out “tax returns filed before the Effective Date,” meaning the IRS cannot audit Trump or his eldest sons’ existing tax returns, but also more broadly gives the plaintiffs immunity from “any matters currently pending or that could be pending” before both the IRS and “other agencies or departments.” While the exact scope of the agreement would likely have to be tested in court, legal experts have interpreted it as giving the president broad legal immunity for any actions he’s previously taken. That’s led some critics to interpret the agreement as a way for Trump to circumvent potential issues with the president pardoning himself.
Tangent
In addition to Democrats’ concerns about the IRS settlement, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., also challenged Bessent on Wednesday about Trump’s slew of recent stock trades, as recent financial disclosures indicate the president made nearly 4,000 trades between January and March alone. Warren pointed to Bessent’s past criticism of members of Congress trading stocks and asked if that extended to the president—but Bessent deflected, saying Congress should take care of its own situation around stock trading first and “lead by example” rather than focus on Trump. “President Trump is not sitting in the Oval Office engaging in a high-frequency trading strategy, clearly he has an outside manager who was doing that,” Bessent said. Warren hit back, telling Bessent he “know[s] better” than to think Trump was fully blind to his stock trades and she “would like to see the President of the United States lead by example.” Bessent also deflected when asked if Trump should face an investigation for whether he traded based on insider information, telling Warren he was “not a lawyer” and claiming the government should “investigate many people on this committee” instead.
Key Background
Trump reached his agreement with the IRS last month after previously suing the agency for $10 billion, alleging it violated his privacy when an IRS contractor leaked details of his tax returns to media outlets. The settlement was reached as the judge overseeing the case was deciding whether it should be thrown out altogether, as it was unclear if Trump and his own IRS were actually opposing parties eligible to be in litigation against each other. The $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund, designed to provide relief to those who believe they’ve been victimized by the government, was scuttled after even Republican lawmakers opposed the agreement, which threatened the GOP’s ability to pass a funding bill if Republicans joined with Democrats to add amendments that would kill the fund. DOJ initially said only that it would follow a court ruling that put the fund on hold temporarily, which sparked confusion about whether it could be reinstated in the future, before Blanche clarified Tuesday the plan was killed altogether.