US judge voids Donald Trump's $1.8bn settlement with IRS that gave him immunity from tax audits

July 13, 2026

A federal judge has invalidated a settlement agreement between President Trump and the IRS that would have granted him immunity from tax audits while establishing a $1. 8 billion fund to compensate individuals claiming government persecution. Judge Kathleen Williams ruled the lawsuit underlying the settlement was filed for improper purposes and represented collusion rather than a legitimate legal dispute between adverse parties.

Who is affected

President Donald Trump and his two sons
The Trump Organization
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
Federal taxpayers (who would have funded the $1.8 billion fund)
Alejandro Brito (Trump attorney referred to Florida bar for disciplinary action)
Daniel Epstein (Trump attorney barred from Southern District of Florida cases for at least one year)
Individuals who might have claimed compensation from the "anti-weaponisation" fund
Department of Justice officials involved in negotiating the settlement

What action is being taken

No explicit ongoing actions are described in the article. The settlement has been voided, the fund has been abandoned, and referrals have been made, but these are completed actions rather than ongoing ones.

Why it matters

This ruling matters because it prevents the president from using his position to grant himself immunity from standard tax audit procedures that apply to all citizens, preserving the integrity of the tax system and its protections against political interference. The decision blocks what critics characterized as presidential self-dealing that would have diverted $1.8 billion in taxpayer funds to compensate political allies without legally defined criteria. By voiding the settlement, the ruling restores the IRS's ability to conduct audits of Trump's tax returns and reinforces the principle that the president cannot manipulate government agencies and the legal system for personal benefit. The case also highlights concerns about conflicts of interest when presidential lawyers occupy government positions and negotiate settlements benefiting their former client.

What's next

No explicit next steps stated in the article

Read full article from source: BBC