1. United States
2. Minn.
3. Letter

Thank you for your response to my concern of President Trump and the IRS. However, your summary of the situation leaves several critical issues unaddressed, and I want to clarify why many of us remain deeply concerned. The “Anti‑Weaponization Fund” you referenced does not resolve the core problem I raised: the President’s own Justice Department negotiated a settlement in a lawsuit where the President is effectively on both sides — and where the terms could shield him and his family from future IRS audits. Nothing in your reply addresses: - The potential waiver of mandatory presidential audits, which federal law requires for every sitting president. - The possibility that the settlement could block ongoing audits, including one in which the IRS has preliminarily determined the President may owe over $100 million. - The federal judge’s explicit concern about the constitutional validity of the lawsuit, and her appointment of independent counsel to review it. - The timing of the settlement, which appears designed to preempt the judge’s May 20 briefing deadline. - The potential cost to taxpayers, estimated at roughly $100 per income‑tax filer if government funds are used. The creation of a broad “Anti‑Weaponization Fund” does not answer these questions. In fact, it raises new ones: Who oversees it? How are claims validated? Does it divert public money to settle a private lawsuit? And most importantly, does it grant the President or his family any immunity from IRS scrutiny going forward? These are not partisan concerns. They go to the heart of equal treatment under the law and the integrity of our tax system. I respectfully ask you to take a clear position on the following points: 1) Do you oppose any settlement that exempts the President or his family from mandatory IRS audits? 2) Will you support legislation preventing any president from receiving government settlement funds in cases involving their own administration? 3) Will you call for full public transparency of the settlement terms before they are finalized? Minnesotans deserve clarity, not general assurances. This matter involves presidential power, taxpayer money, and the rule of law. I urge you to address these specific issues directly. Thank you again for your time.