Top IRS lawyer to resign post amid disagreements with Trump administration

Ken Kies, who served as acting chief counsel to the Internal Revenue Service and assistant secretary for tax policy at the US Treasury, is stepping down from his position. Multiple news outlets reported this week that Kies was forced out of his role, citing anonymous sources familiar with the situation. The departure marks the latest instance of internal conflict within the Trump administration. According to reports, Kies had cautioned White House officials against directing the IRS to conduct or terminate audits of specific taxpayers. Federal law explicitly prohibits the president and executive branch officials from making such requests to prevent tax audits from becoming a political weapon. The circumstances surrounding Kies's departure reflect broader concerns about potential misuse of the tax agency. Historical precedent exists for such concerns: former President Richard Nixon sought to appoint an IRS head willing to target political opponents, remarks that later contributed to his impeachment proceedings and 1974 resignation. Trump has faced similar scrutiny regarding his use of the IRS. Since beginning his second term, he has threatened to revoke Harvard University's tax-exempt status over its handling of pro-Palestinian protests and admissions policies. Additionally, Trump filed a personal lawsuit against the IRS in January, claiming an outside contractor leaked his tax returns in 2017, which subsequently received media attention including New York Times coverage in 2019. Trump sought $10 billion in damages, though critics noted the suit appeared to exceed the statute of limitations and represented a significant conflict of interest given that the IRS operates under presidential authority. The Justice Department announced an out-of-court settlement in May that would have provided Trump and his family immunity from IRS tax audits and established an $1.8 billion fund to compensate those deemed victims of unfair government prosecution. Legal observers characterized the case as unprecedented, with a sitting president suing his own government agency.