Bill · S.Res. 828· Senate(119-SRES-828)
A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that President Trump's lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service, the resulting settlement from that lawsuit, the purported "Anti-Weaponization Fund", and the purported grant of immunity from tax investigations to the plaintiffs in President Trump's lawsuit, should be rejected, equal protection arguments by others with similar claims should be forestalled, and this settlement should not serve as a precedent and should never be repeated.
- Introduced
- 8/4/2026
- Last activity
- 8/4/2026 — Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text: CR S4436)
- Sponsored by
- Richard Blumenthal
- Cosponsors
- None
- Introduced
- In Committee
A Senate resolution is the Senate speaking for itself: stating a position, honouring someone, or setting its own rules. Adopting it is the whole process. Once the Senate agrees to it, it is officially the Senate's word; it is not a law, so the House and the President have no part in it.
What this bill would do
This resolution expresses the sense of the Senate regarding a lawsuit filed by President Trump against the IRS and the Department of the Treasury. The Senate expresses that the resulting settlement, which includes the creation of an "Anti-Weaponization Fund," should be rejected. It also addresses a purported grant of immunity from tax investigations provided to the plaintiffs. The resolution seeks to forestall equal protection arguments from others with similar claims. Finally, it states that this settlement should not serve as a precedent and should never be repeated.
Yes· 3 of 4
Does this reduce what the federal government owes?+1
By rejecting the massive settlement and immunity, the Senate aims to prevent significant loss of federal revenue.
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?+1
The resolution seeks to prevent the $1.8 billion expenditure required by the Anti-Weaponization Fund.
Does this make the government pay for what it commits to?+1
Rejecting the settlement prevents potential billions in lost tax revenue through unchecked immunity.
The opposite
Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this?-5
The resolution seeks to reject a settlement and immunity that would have benefited high-net-worth plaintiffs.
Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this?-5
The resolution seeks to reject a settlement and immunity that would have benefited high-net-worth plaintiffs.
Would billionaires be better off under this?-5
The resolution seeks to reject a settlement and immunity that would have benefited high-net-worth plaintiffs.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Protection of Tax Revenue: By rejecting the grant of immunity, the government may prevent the loss of millions or perhaps billions of dollars in revenue that would occur if hundreds of thousands of entities were immune to retrospective tax audits (Whereas clauses).
-
Preventing Unfair Precedents: The resolution aims to forestall others from using equal protection arguments to claim similar immunity for their own tax filings (Whereas clauses).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Financial Burden from the Settlement: The settlement involves the establishment of an "Anti-Weaponization Fund" to provide nearly $1,800,000,000 in payouts to individuals, including those who participated in the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol (Whereas clauses).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Good For Billionaires-5Good For High Net Worth Individuals-5Good For Ultra High Net Worth Individuals-5
- Economy And Finance
- Improves Fiscal Responsibility+1Reduces Government Spending+1Reduces National Debt+1
- Governance And Ideology
- Improves Government Transparency+1
- 8/4/2026
- Submitted in Senate
- Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text: CR S4436)