Trump’s DOJ Eliminates the Tax Division—An Editorial Comment (6/26/25/6/27/25)

Caveat: This is Jack Townsend’s extended editorial comment on the elimination of DOJ Tax Division. This is an opinion piece. Those who do not care about my opinion might want to focus their attention elsewhere.

I previously wrote on the DOJ budget request that included eliminating the Tax Division. DOJ 2026 Budget Reflects Reorganization Plan to Eliminate Tax Division and Spread Its Functions to Other Components (CIV and CRIM) (DOJ Tax Division Alumni Blog 6/17/25), here.

Trump and his minions (collectively Trump) want to (i) benefit real or perceived friends, (ii) punish real or perceived enemies, and (iii) punish anyone or group or agency that deters him from doing (i) or (ii). Trump’s list of friends (real or perceived) and enemies (real or perceived) can change often and depends upon his whim or grievances of the moment. (For the balance of his posting, I will just refer to friends or enemies, but the reference includes real or perceived.) But I think the throughline is that he really hates his enemies. And he has made clear that he intends to use DOJ to punish his enemies.

The Tax Division is the least political of DOJ Components. (I think even less political than the Solicitor General’s office, particularly after the Bob Jones case where the SG’s office through Larry Wallace, a career attorney in the SG’s office, showed true independence. See Larry Wallace of SG's Office and Footnote Fame Dies (DOJ Tax Division Alumni Blog 2/24/20), here)

Trump could have appointed an Assistant Attorney General for the Tax Division and the next layer of Deputies who likely would bend the knee to Trump. (I’ll call this group Trump tax acolytes.) But Trump tax acolytes would have had some difficulty because, in my experience, they would face resistance in the Tax Division with a tradition of nonpartisanship and overall fairness in tax enforcement. In other words, the likelihood of resistance to Trump acolytes serving Trump (see items (i) and (ii) above) is much greater if the Tax Division remained a separate DOJ Component. And that same likelihood of resistance in the Tax Division as a separate Component would be true whoever holds the political reins of power--Democrat, Republican, Liberal, Conservative, or even a special category for Trump (for which there is a name but not appropriate for publication here; let’s just say it is not a term of endearment.)

Trump also has some grievances, real or perceived, against the Tax Division. Trump believes that the Tax Division benefited Hunter Biden by originally agreeing to much lesser tax crimes. Having a sense of the nonpolitical circumstances Hunter Biden presented (addiction, etc.) and DOJ Tax prosecution priorities, I suspect that, had Hunter Biden not been connected in any way with President Biden, his lawyers could have avoided prosecution or negotiated a plea no worse than the original agreement. But, Hunter Biden has been the Trumpies’ (and Republicans’ generally) cause célèbres for a long time as a means to hurt President Biden, both politically and personally; they bullied the Delaware US Attorney into upping the charges to which Hunter Biden pled guilty. But the Trumpies were greatly aggrieved—or at least claimed to be—by the original plea arrangement that they felt was too lenient because of President Biden. (Of course, the Trumpies are projecting by imagining, contrary to fact, that all Presidents behave as Trump does by actually making the DOJ an instrument of Presidents’ grievances and whims.)

Perhaps another Trump grievance against the Tax Division is that the Tax Division approved tax crimes charges and the plea deal against the father of Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law. According to a DOJ archive web page (that is available as of this posting), Charles Kushner pled guilty and was sentenced “to 24 months in prison for his pleas of guilty to assisting in the filing of false tax returns, retaliating against a cooperating witness and making false statements to the Federal Election Commission.” The tax counts and the plea agreement on the tax counts would have had to be approved by the Tax Division. The DOJ web page quotes the sentencing judge as saying Kushner’s criminal conduct (including possibly some uncharged or dismissed relevant conduct) was “disgraceful and reprehensible,” thus justifying a sentence at “the top of the eligible range - 18 to 24 months - under his plea agreement with the government.” (In this case, DOJ Tax’s approval of the plea deal with a sentencing cap approved by the judge was quite beneficial to Mr. Kushner, because the counts of conviction could otherwise be stacked or, in the case of the tax crimes, all tax involved would be aggregated into a single calculation under the Sentencing Guidelines to determine the appropriate range limited only by the counts of conviction aggregate maximums.)

The DOJ archived web page is here:

https://www.justice.gov/archive/tax/usaopress/2005/txdv05kush0304_r.htm  [PDF copy here.]

I suspect the web page may be taken down during the Trump administration. Why do I suspect that? Trump has pardoned Charles Kushner for his crimes that the judge found “disgraceful and reprehensible.” And, overlooking the conduct found “disgraceful and reprehensible,” Trump appointed Charles Kushner as Ambassador to France. Accordingly, I provide a link to a pdf of the web page printed today.

What is the throughline in the Charles Kushner and the Hunter Biden episodes. Charles Kushner is a friend (at least perceived) through Trump’s son-in-law, therefore in Trump’s mind deserving to be forgiven his tax dalliances. Hunter Biden is an enemy (at least claimed) through his father, President Biden. Therefore, Hunter Biden deserves the worst that the criminal tax system can throw at him, and therefore the Tax Division drew Trump’s ire for not originally coming down harder on Hunter Biden.

And then, of course, Trump wants to benefit his friends among the mega-wealthy. The One Big Beautiful Bill is designed to disproportionately benefit high-income earners and corporations. Another way to benefit the mega-wealthy is to degrade tax enforcement. He has shown his disdain for tax enforcement and a functioning tax system in his appointment as IRS Commissioner of Billy Long, whose experience is U.S. Representative for Missouri’s 7th Congressional District from 2011 to 2023; Real estate broker; Auctioneer; Talk radio host; and Tax consultant (in this latter category hawking dubious claimed tax benefits). Killing the Tax Division is consistent with Trump’s disdain for tax at least as it applies to the wealthy (which includes Trump, at least now that he is monetizing on his Presidency).

All of that is to say that eliminating the Tax Division is not a one-off for Trump to benefit his friends and punish his enemies. He has other opportunities to flex power to benefit friends and punish enemies. Benefitting friends and punishing enemies is what Trump does (when he can) and who he is (if he can). This one-off is one I know about and thus feel qualified to write this editorial comment. 

Added 6/26/25 11:00pm: Although not related to the Tax Division or DOJ, this news article about the Trump Administration through DOJ attacking the President of the University of Virginia.

University of Virginia President Under Pressure From Trump’s D.O.J. to Resign (NYT 6/26/25), here (share link).

I am a UVA Law graduate. In my opinion, this attack on President Jim Ryan is unconscionable, but totally in the Trump and minions' pattern of conduct. They decide that they can score points with their base by attacking someone that they claim is "woke," meaning in this case has promoted DEI. They attack and attack and threaten and threaten until the target, in this case Jim Ryan but using threats against UVA as a fulcrum to punish Trump's new enemy, Jim Ryan. I love the University of Virginia which is why I live in Charlottesville. Jim Ryan is an outstanding President. It will be a sad day if UVA capitulates. But I understand that UVA is a state university ultimately manipulable by politicians, particularly the Republican governor who has seeded the Board of Visitors with right-wing zealots. And others have joined the right-wing zealot chorus. Of course, UVA is not unique. Trump has made similar groundless attacks on other universities and various others he claims are enemies. But, as with my comments on DOJ Tax Division and its demise, I feel that I am qualified to comment on this similar pattern with UVA. (BTW, two of the Trump minions mentioned in the article are said to be UVA Law grads as well, so it is a bit surprising that they would participate in this spurious effort to damage UVA.)

Added 7/27/25 3:15pm: Trump succeeded in bullying Ryan into resigning. Michael S. Schmidt and Michael C. Bender, University of Virginia President Resigns Under Pressure From Trump Administration (NYT 6/27/25), here (gift link). Relevant excerpt: "For the leader of one of the nation’s most prominent public universities to take such an extraordinary step demonstrates President Trump’s success in harnessing the investigative powers of the federal government to accomplish his administration’s policy goals."

JAT Comment: I would change "policy goals" to "political goals." I personally view Ryan's forced resignation as a tragic and totally politically motivated result that exemplifies the worst of Trump and his minions. Of course, DOJ Tax Division Alumni will have noticed the same pattern, in a Tax Division context, but the same pattern of arbitrary conduct both in the elimination of the Tax Division and in forcing out the Tax DAAG. Deputy AAG Tax Hubbert Removed and Reassigned to Sanctuary City Program (Whatever That Is) (DOJ Tax Division Alumni Blog 2/7/25; 2/11/25), here (I highly recommend some review of the copious comments to the NYT article.) I say exemplifies the worst in Trump's avalanche of bad actions since his proverbial "Day One." I am concerned that we are used to his bad actions that we are becoming immune to them or think that they set a new standard that future Presidents can use to justify their bad actions. I do hope, though, that Trump is a one-off in this respect and that future Presidents will return to the law and norms that have sustained this country and made it truly great. So to capture Trump's hyperbolic slogan, "Make America Great Again" (which will require Trump's absence from the Presidency (however achieved, normal term, impeachment, 25th Amendment, death, etc.)). I guess I should qualify that return to law and norms may have to await the term of the VP (who seems to be a Trumpie but smarter than Trump) if Trump prematurely vacates the office.

For a good recent article on variations of this theme, the following is an excellent opinion piece: John Allen Paulos, Bullshit and Cons: Alberto Brandolini and Mark Twain Issue a Warning About Trump (3 Quarks Daily 6/4/25), here.