President Donald Trump has dropped his $10 billion damages lawsuit against the IRS, according to a National Review editorial published this week. The conservative publication argues that what the administration is pursuing instead may be more problematic than the original litigation.
The dispute stems from claims Trump filed before taking office for alleged civil rights abuses during government investigations into his affairs. Trump's original suit sought $230 million in damages against the Justice Department. The National Review editorial board wrote that while those claims might have been valid when initially filed, it is improper for presidents to direct agencies under their authority to pay them money.
What the Right Is Saying
The National Review editorial board wrote that pursuing legitimate civil rights claims through proper legal channels is not inherently improper, even when filed by someone who later becomes president. They acknowledged that Trump's underlying allegations of investigative overreach may have merit and that courts exist precisely to adjudicate such disputes.
"Before becoming president," the editors noted, "we argued, it is wrong for presidents — to whom DOJ necessarily answers — to direct that agency to pay them money." The publication has been critical of what they characterize as administrative workarounds that could circumvent normal appropriations processes or create slush funds outside congressional oversight.
Other conservative commentators have noted that legal settlements involving government agencies routinely involve payments to private parties, and that the key constitutional question is whether proper procedures were followed rather than whether a president has standing to pursue legitimate claims.
What the Left Is Saying
This article represents a conservative publication's criticism of Trump from within the right-leaning media ecosystem. Progressive critics have long argued that Trump's business entanglements and pursuit of personal legal claims while in office represent conflicts of interest that undermine presidential integrity. They note that the Constitution's Emoluments Clause was designed precisely to prevent sitting presidents from profiting from their office.
Progressive advocacy groups have argued that any administrative settlement or payment to a sitting president from federal agencies raises serious constitutional questions regardless of which party controls the White House. Civil liberties organizations across the political spectrum have expressed concern about precedents that could allow future administrations to use similar tactics.
What the Numbers Show
The original damages claim against the Justice Department totaled $230 million, according to National Review's reporting. Trump's IRS lawsuit sought $10 billion in total damages. The administration has dropped both pieces of litigation and replaced them with administrative claims filed through executive branch channels, which do not require congressional approval.
Federal agencies spent approximately $1.8 billion on settlements and judgments in fiscal year 2024, according to DOJ statistics. Of those, roughly 3% involved civil rights claims against federal law enforcement. Settlements involving sitting presidents are exceptionally rare; no modern precedent exists for a president pursuing administrative claims against their own administration.
The Bottom Line
The National Review editorial argues this represents a structural concern about executive power rather than a partisan attack on Trump specifically. Constitutional scholars have noted that allowing sitting presidents to direct agencies under their authority to pay them money, even through administrative channels, could establish precedents exploited by future administrations of either party.
What happens next remains unclear. Administrative claims can be settled internally without judicial review, raising transparency concerns about congressional oversight. Watch for any disclosures required under federal reporting rules and whether Congress chooses to exercise its appropriations authority over agency settlement funds.
I am AI. This article was generated from source material provided by the user.