Trump DOJ Lawyer Defends IRS Lawsuit Amid Criticism for ‘Lack of Respect’ to Judiciary

In a high-profile legal battle unfolding in the Southern District of Florida, a senior Department of Justice attorney has mounted a vigorous defense of former President Donald Trump’s recent lawsuit against the IRS, despite sharp judicial criticism for apparent disregard of court protocols. The filing, submitted August 12, 2026, seeks to overturn sanctions imposed on Trump’s private legal team and challenges a gag order barring the president from discussing the controversial IRS settlement, which a federal judge branded “collusive” and “non-adversarial.”

Judge Garaufis Criticizes DOJ Lawyer for ‘Lack of Respect’

Earlier this month, Senior U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis of Brooklyn sharply rebuked Acting Deputy Attorney General R. Trent McCotter for what he described as “irregularities” in the DOJ’s handling of a bribery case involving an Indian billionaire who shares legal counsel with Trump. Garaufis accused McCotter of sidelining the professional opinions of numerous federal officials in favor of his own judgment—a move the judge called “highly unusual” and indicative of “a lack of respect for the Judiciary as a co-equal branch.”

Despite this stern critique, McCotter remains the DOJ’s lead advocate defending the legality and propriety of Trump’s IRS lawsuit settlement before the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The tension highlights ongoing friction between the judiciary and elements within the DOJ regarding how politically sensitive cases involving Trump are being managed.

DOJ Argues Settlement Was ‘Normal’ and Not Collusive

In its latest court filing, McCotter’s office sought to undercut the Southern District of Florida’s Judge Kathleen Williams’ July ruling that labeled the IRS lawsuit settlement as “collusive,” imposing sanctions on Trump’s private attorneys and enacting a gag order on the former president himself. The DOJ contends that the lawsuit and subsequent settlement followed a transparent and routine legal process.

“One of the two fundamental premises of the District Court’s Order was that Plaintiffs filed this suit with an ‘improper purpose’ because the Complaint was a ‘vehicle to achieve a predetermined outcome,’” McCotter wrote. “But that makes zero sense, for the simple reason that a party need not file a lawsuit in order to obtain a full settlement with the federal government.”

McCotter argued that if there had been any collusion, filing a public lawsuit would have been counterproductive, as it would attract unwanted scrutiny. He maintained that the entire process unfolded openly and that the court’s claim of being misled was unfounded because the parties did not seek judicial approval of the settlement’s merits.

Public Opposition and Involvement of Former Officials

The case drew unusual attention when the court invited three separate groups of amici curiae—totaling 35 former federal judges, IRS officials, and Treasury Department personnel—to weigh in against the settlement. These groups opposed the lawsuit and later sought reimbursement of legal fees, a move that McCotter’s filing describes as an anomaly rather than the DOJ’s failure.

“The District Court criticized the Department of Justice for settling rather than raising arguments that other courts had rejected,” McCotter said. He also requested that the 11th Circuit reassign the case from Judge Williams to another jurist in a jurisdiction known for Trump-appointed judges, implicitly questioning the impartiality of the current bench.

Trump’s Legal Team Seeks Immediate Relief

Separately, Trump’s attorneys have petitioned the appeals court to immediately stay the sanctions and gag order imposed by Judge Williams. The sanctions notably included the referral of Trump’s attorney Alejandro Brito to the Florida Bar and a monetary reimbursement to the amici. Trump’s team contends that the sanctions were issued without sufficient evidence of collusion or bad faith and that the gag order violates constitutional rights.

Judge Williams, appointed by former President Barack Obama, recently declined to pause the sanctions, stating there was no “good cause” to do so. This legal standoff is likely to continue escalating as both sides prepare for further appeals.

The DOJ’s defense of Trump’s IRS lawsuit settlement, despite harsh judicial criticism, underscores the deep divisions and complex legal battles surrounding the former president’s ongoing entanglements with federal agencies. The 11th Circuit’s forthcoming decisions will be closely watched for their implications on judicial authority, executive branch conduct, and the politicization of federal litigation.