Trump’s IRS deal violates the Domestic Emoluments Clause

The collusive deal that President Trump entered into with his own appointees to shield himself, his family and his businesses from ongoing and future tax audits based on actions before May 18, 2026 constitutes a violation of the Constitution’s Domestic Emoluments Clause, according to an amicus brief CREW submitted to the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in Floyd v. Department of Justice.

Earlier this year, a group of plaintiffs, including National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) which represents career IRS auditors, brought a federal lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization fund” and IRS immunity order. The career IRS employees allege that, as a result of the collusive immunity order, they will be unlawfully conscripted into providing the president and his relatives and affiliates with a lucrative benefit not available to any other Americans in violation of their oath of office and at the risk of criminal liability. Refusing to comply with the order, NTEU alleges, places them at risk of retaliation.

The Constitution’s Domestic Emoluments provides for the president to receive “a Compensation” fixed by Congress during his term in office and forbids him from “receiv[ing] within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.” In the founding era, an emolument was commonly used to mean any “profit,” “gain” or “advantage.” The clause was designed as an anti-corruption provision to prohibit a president from converting the office into a vehicle for personal profit at the expense of the public.

CREW’s amicus brief argues that, by providing President Trump benefits including the discharge of  federal tax liability, the collusive immunity order confers enormous value to him in violation of the Domestic Emoluments Clause. Notably, there were reportedly audits of Trump’s tax returns underway at the time that the immunity order was signed, and President Trump may have owed at least $100 million in underpaid taxes based on his losses claimed on his Chicago property alone.

While the Department of Justice seeks to narrow the interpretation of the Emoluments Clauses to apply only to payments that a president explicitly receives in exchange for his official acts, CREW’s amicus brief argues that history, including the debates drafting and ratifying the Constitution, overwhelmingly demonstrate that the framers of the Constitution intended to prohibit a broader array of “profits,” “gains” or “advantages” presidents could receive while serving in office.

No matter what the president or his appointees instruct them to do, Treasury employees are bound by their oath to uphold the Constitution, which means they cannot provide these lucrative tax benefits to Trump. The district court should nullify the immunity order and prohibit the president’s subordinates from giving the collusive immunity order effect.