WATCH LIVE: Bessent testifies on Treasury, $250 Trump bill & more

have an increased confidence thanks to a permanent pro-growth 20% tax deduction. Estimates find that permanence will create 1.2 million jobs annually and boost small business GDP by $750 billion over the next decade. The permanent restoration of full expensing for US research and development will support domestic innovation and growth by large and small businesses alike. To maximize that growth, taxpayers need additional clarity from Treasury and the IRS so that they can plan and invest with certainty. Issuing final guidance for these tax provisions will provide that certainty and further encourage domestic investment. Implementing the new provisions from the working families tax cuts was no small task, but the 2026 filing season proceeded smoothly for tens of millions of Americans. I look forward to hearing from you about plans for successful filing seasons next year, as well as the more work that needs to be done to implement the law and technological investments made to modernize the IRS. Regarding IRS modernization, Ranking Member Wyden and I released the Taxpayer Assistance and Service Act earlier this year. This bipartisan bill with more than 60 provisions and supported across the tax community is focused on modernizing the IRS, improving the taxpayer experience, and strengthening taxpayer rights. Many Finance Committee member priorities are included in the bill along with a series of long-requested provisions from the tax practitioners as well as the National Taxpayer Advocate. I look forward to advancing this legislation in the very near future and welcome any comments from you on it. Beyond tax administration, I'm hopeful for similar support as we move forward with other priorities with a bipartisan foundation in this committee such as establishing clear and durable tax rules for digital assets. Mr. Secretary, we're very glad to have you with us today and look forward to your remarks. And with that, I turn to the Ranking Member for his opening statement.

Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, there is lots to work on. Now, colleagues, it was just a matter of time before the Trump administration set the new high water mark for public corruption. That moment arrived a little more than two weeks ago with the settlement of Trump's ridiculous IRS lawsuit. This hearing is the first opportunity for Congress to examine it. So, let's start by zooming out to get a full appreciation of how dirty this whole situation has been. Donald Trump sued his own administration for $10 billion over a tax return leak that happened on his watch. A judge appeared ready to toss the lawsuit. So, Trump rushed a settlement for personal gain. The Acting Attorney General went out yesterday and said they're not moving forward with the $1.8 billion insurrection slush fund. The other part of this settlement apparently remains in place and that is the part that presents the biggest direct benefit to Trump. Todd Blanche let Trump off the hook for potentially hundreds of millions in back taxes by cancelling what's reported to be a long-running dispute with the IRS. Then he let the entire Trump family and the Trump Organization off the hook for any tax crimes they may have committed in the past. As of right now, everybody in America is subject to audit except the Trump family. Unfortunately, the Senate Republican leader was quoted this morning saying that this is business as usual, that it's a standard settlement. The reality is that's totally wrong. Two former IRS commissioners have now confirmed that this is completely without precedent. It's the ultimate case of an ultra-wealthy individual living under one set of rules while everybody else lives under another. A crooked double standard that benefits Trump and family. I take it as an admission of his own guilt when it comes to tax cheating. Trump and his family have been stuffing every dollar they can grab into their own pockets. If everything was on the level, seems to me he wouldn't need Todd Blanche to get the IRS off his back. Secretary Bessent owes the committee an explanation of what the Treasury knows about the dirty settlement. That's because his department was involved from beginning to end. Treasury was a defendant and a negotiator in the lawsuit. It was informed by IRS attorneys that Trump had no real case. And it sure looks to me like Treasury's top lawyer quit his job in objection to the settlement. This is an abuse of the IRS that goes way beyond anything that I have any familiarity with. My view is this committee needs to investigate this on a bipartisan basis. Blanche allegedly dropped the insurrection fund. Doesn't change that. So, what's particularly shocking about a corrupt deal like this is it comes when so many American families are feeling fearful about the economy. I was home last week having four town hall meetings in parts of my state that are bright red and what they talked to me about was the pain of inflation going up, wage growth going down, the job market flattening. The Trump administration doesn't seem to care. Last week, Secretary Bessent was asked during an interview about price increases caused by the Iran war. He said, I quote, 'It was less than $200 in extra gasoline costs. All the Democrats want to talk about is beef and gasoline.' Now, to me, you might think that a political leader couldn't get any more dismissive of people's economic concerns. But then, Donald Trump topped it himself. When asked if America's financial situation made him think about ending the war that he started, he said, and I quote, 'Not even a little bit.' He continued, 'I don't think about Americans' financial situation. I don't think about anybody.' Mr. Chairman and colleagues, I've never heard a president of the United States talk in such a dismissive way about the hurt the American people. And then he rambled through his ever-changing goals in the quagmire of a war. No sympathy for struggling families at all from the president. Americans are increasingly spending down their savings and going into debt to get by. The people running the country are ratcheting up the cost of living with wars, tariffs, and cuts to health care and basic services. It's cold comfort to somebody who had to max out their tax credit card to feed their kids that Trump might get his face on a $250 bill. But that's the kind of priority that apparently the Treasury Department is focusing on these days. Even outside of economic matters, the Treasury Secretary is simply out of step with the American people. There's no better example than the fact that there's been a cover-up of the massive file of Epstein's financial records for a year and a half. This is part of the effort I've made, it's the only one, to follow the money in the Epstein situation. And yet, there's been a denial of access to committee investigators and lying in public about their significance. That subject alone deserves its own hearing. Senate investigators are trying to figure out who paid Epstein for girls. And unfortunately, Secretary Bessent is involved in preventing that from happening. The bottom line in this administration is the machinery of government works to the benefit of Donald Trump before all else. That's the corrupt framework that produces insurrection slush funds, protects pedophiles, and dismisses the concerns of people who are worried about being able to make rent and to feed their families. There is an awful lot for the committee to discuss today, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to question and answers. Senator Crapo.

Thank you, Senator Wyden. Secretary Bessent, you may make your opening statement.

Mr. Chairman. Let's be clear here. Nobody is interested in the ramblings of a capo in the most corrupt regime in American history. We want to get some facts about this deal. That's what we're here for. Thank you.

Well, thank you. And I will ask my questions first today.

And we would like to hear what Adam Wyden and Jeffrey Epstein talked about. Your son's largest investment position was Rick's Cabaret. So, did your son and Jeffrey Epstein talk about pole dancing as he begged him for money using your limited credibility?

Should I just proceed? I'm going to proceed with my questions and Mr. Secretary, I'm going to start with regard to the issues that Senator Wyden raised. There have been a lot of accusations about the settlement agreement between the president and the IRS over the leak of his tax returns. On Monday, the Department of Justice announced that it would abide by the district court's ruling enjoining the creation or operation of the anti-weaponization fund that was established under the settlement agreement. Yesterday, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche announced at a hearing that we are not moving forward with the fund. Period. With respect to other parts of the settlement agreement, I'd like to give you the opportunity to set the record straight. Understanding that there is ongoing litigation. What can you share with us about Treasury and the IRS's role in the settlement agreement? Specifically, since IRS CEO Frank Bisignano signed the settlement agreement, what can you share with us about Mr. Bisignano's role in reaching that agreement?

All right. Thank you. And with regard to the working families tax cuts, affordability remains top of mind for families across this country. Last summer, Republicans acted to prevent what would have been the largest tax increase in American history and delivered meaningful pro-growth tax relief through the working families tax cuts, providing much-needed support to American workers and families. Can you talk about Treasury's work so far to implement this groundbreaking tax relief, and what parts of the law do you view as the most helpful in addressing affordability issues?

Thank you. The Senate Finance Committee is engaged in productive bipartisan discussions on the taxation of digital assets. As the digital asset industry continues to grow and evolve, there's an increasing need for durable common sense rules of the road that provide certainty for taxpayers, support innovation, and help ensure that the United States remains competitive in the global digital markets. Does Treasury support congressional efforts to develop comprehensive digital asset taxation? And in your view, what are the risks of continued inaction both in terms of taxpayer compliance and America's ability to remain competitive in the rapidly growing digital asset economy?

Thank you very much. My time is expired and I encourage all my colleagues to note when their time expires. We want to keep moving expeditiously. Senator Wyden.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Secretary, yesterday, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche indicated that the administration is not moving forward with the slush fund, but there's been no indication of what this means for the Trump alleged IRS audit immunity. So my first question is, does the IRS audit immunity given to Trump, his family, and his businesses still stand? I'd like a yes or no answer to that.

I got five minutes. I'm going to use them for these questions. Okay. So that we understand what's at stake here. This immunity deal is the biggest scam against the taxpayer in American history and Americans are going to pay taxes and Trump and his clan won't. So we'll start with that. Now my second question is every president's tax return gets audited. Mr. Secretary, who originated the May 19th addendum cancelling Trump's audits? Was it Trump, DOJ, or Treasury? Again sir, as Albert Einstein said, doing the same thing and expecting a different answer is the definition of insanity. You've given no answers on this subject and that's why I'm going to ask these questions and because there's ongoing litigation. Does the DOJ have the authority to settle a tax dispute unilaterally? The DOJ acts as the attorney for Treasury and the IRS. So the tax code says the DOJ can only settle a tax dispute if you, the Treasury Secretary, first deferred the dispute to DOJ in the case we're talking about. So here, Trump, his kids, all of the business entities they own, potentially thousands of tax returns, and unless you referred every single one of those tax returns to DOJ, the addendum is invalid, or the Treasury and the IRS believe have been more involved in this scandal, as far as I can tell, than you've led us to believe. So, I'm going to keep digging into the timetable here. Career IRS attorneys wrote a 25-page memo preparing defenses against Trump's lawsuit, and they recommended DOJ move to have Trump's lawsuit dismissed. The IRS reportedly gave this memo to Treasury officials in April before the settlement. Did you see that memo? Will you provide this committee with a copy of the IRS memo? Mr. Chairman, I'm going to continue my questions, but I would like to ask you now to authorize a 6103 waiver and for Mr. Bessent to waive the attorney-client privilege, which I guess is part of what he's up to. I will continue with the questions that highlight my argument. The Biden administration prosecuted Charles Littlejohn, the Booz Allen contractor who leaked Trump's tax returns. Booz Allen, which helped with the prosecution, held contracts with the Treasury Department for years. Three days before Trump filed his lawsuit this year, you abruptly canceled all the contracts. It is hard to see that timing be a coincidence. Did you know in advance that Trump was going to file a suit against the IRS? All right. I've written to you twice asking for records related to this decision. Both times you refused. I'll ask again. Will you send the committee all records documenting this decision so we can review this in a bipartisan fashion? We're going to continue these questions and I come back to my point. Mr. Chairman, we need you to support this 6103 waiver so that this committee on a bipartisan basis can look into a matter like this. You're talking about the President of the United States, it doesn't get any more important. And I'll just close my opening effort to try to ferret out the facts here, Mr. Chairman by saying, 'Mr. Secretary, this whole settlement, in my view, is the most brazen abuse of power ever in our history. And as of now, every American is subject to audit except Donald Trump and his family.' I think that's absurd. And you've been dodging questions. Each one of these, you had a legal argument for saying nothing. And I suspect you cleared the way for Trump's lawsuit when you canceled the contracts. And I suspect people right up to the highest level of the Treasury Department had a hand in crafting this unbelievably corrupt gift of a settlement. And I just wanted understood. Colleagues, I want to work with every senator on this committee to get to the bottom of this because we aren't getting the facts. And the secretary, in spite of the fact that he owes answers to the American people, is just dodging and bobbing and weaving. Thank you.

I will not, I'm not quite sure what you're asking, but I will not agree to ask him to waive his attorney-client privilege. It's the way we're going to get to the bottom of it is to have the committee look at these matters in a bipartisan way.

Senator Grassley. I'm going to start first with a comment and a commendation to the department in regard to a program that Senator Wyden and I've been involved in and I think the department's doing the right thing, but I think you're getting pressure to change. So, I want to commend you and the IRS for protecting the integrity of the conservation easement deduction by holding those engaged in abusive syndicated conservation easements accountable. These abusive transactions generally rely on highly inflated appraisals that result in taxpayer investors saving $2 in taxes for every $1 spent. So to be perfectly clear, these arrangements pervert a charitable deduction to turn a significant profit. A 2020 Finance Committee report that details Senator Wyden's and my investigation of these arrangements clearly shows that both the promoters and the taxpayer investors understood them to be tax shelters. So, I encourage you and the IRS to stand by recent settlement offers and ignore those who I think are lobbying you to water it down. Good. Thanks for your comment, Senator. In 1981, at the time of growing deficits and elevated inflation, Fed Chairman Paul Volcker advised Congress to cut spending and to pursue growth policies. He urged Congress to focus on reforms that would incentivize Americans to invest, to save, and to work. The working families tax cut law had heeded the Volcker approach. It reduced spending by over $1 trillion while making provisions of the 2017 tax law focused on spurring domestic investment permanent like full expensing for new factories and factory improvements. How important has the working family tax law been in terms of promoting economic growth, job creation, and wage growth? Sir, this will have to be my last question. You've been a proponent of targeting annual deficits of 3% of GDP, which roughly aligns with the post-World War II average. During the last two years, the Biden administration, we saw a deficit of 6.2% and 6.3%. In 2025, President Trump's first year in office, the deficit came in at 5.8% of GDP. How does President Trump's budget and deregulatory agenda ensure the annual deficit stays on a downward trend towards that 3% that you advocate?

Thank you Senator Warner. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Secretary Bessent. Good to see you again. Good morning. Yesterday, the administration took an action that again I thought I could no longer be surprised, but I was surprised. The president put in Bill Pulte as the Director of National Intelligence. I know it's not your area, but the whole law that was set up establishing the Director of National Intelligence was to make sure that this position was filled by someone with a great deal of national security experience. Now, Mr. Pulte currently is within your domain. Do you know, does Mr. Pulte even have a security clearance? Okay. In being head of the FHFA, isn't that a full-time job? So, the notion that Bill Pulte is going to remain as head of the FHFA and moonlight as the Director of National Intelligence. I don't understand. To me, it seems insulting to the thousands of men and women who work in the intelligence community. Again, Mr. Pulte reports to you. But within, or let me just ask you this. How would you describe Mr. Pulte's temperament? So you're very, you're totally comfortable with the notion that Mr. Pulte who I, at least in press reporting, you've had quite a number of differences with is going to be able to do both the director of FHFA and the Director of National Intelligence? Okay. Well, Mr. Pulte has had a record of not respecting confidential information. He has weaponized mortgage information. I think everyone would at least acknowledge the factual basis of that. And the idea that he's going to suddenly be given the keys to the most classified secrets that keep our country safe. I just would have wished that someone in the White House would have gone to the emperor and said, 'On this one, you got no clothes.' And it's an embarrassment. Let me get to another topic. Agentic AI, you know, I think there's great promise from AI. There's also downsides, but as we think about agentic AI agents, I'm sending letters on this. I think we need a strong fiduciary regime around those agents. I mean, when Mike said to me recently, if your agentic AI agent goes off and buys a bunch of retail stuff for you and you get it home and then a human being says, I don't want this stuff, who bears the burden. As you think about the notion, when we've talked about this in the past of agentic AI agents, do you believe that we need some level of strong fiduciary regime? Well again we may agree to disagree and the notion that a simply voluntary regime, fiduciary duty would imply some duty. I've talked to many of the banks. They think with methos they are totally unprotected. And the idea that we're going to have only a voluntary regime I believe will put our banking system at risk clearly our national security at risk. And I felt like the president's earlier draft made a lot of sense. I was very disappointed it was watered down. The only difference in the draft was 90 to 30 days. Well, the draft I saw earlier had a stronger than strictly voluntary regime, but I want to get my last point in quickly. We still got to get the CDFI money out. We got 32 senators, 16 on each side, including the chairman. You know, the money is sitting there. It needs to get out. It's June, still hasn't awarded a single dollar of the money.

Thank you, Senator Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary, thank you for taking some time to be here with us today. Good to see you again. Good to see you, Senator. Hope all is well in Charleston. I don't get back much, but we miss you there. So, find a way back to the holy city. We need to see you more often. Let me just first say to you and particularly to your staff as well on the issue of home ownership. As you know, we worked in the banking committee for a long time on the 21st century road to housing. Your team has been fantastic to work with and frankly this is an issue that is not a Republican issue or Democrat issue. Every member of the Democrat side of the aisle as well as Republicans work together hand-in-glove to make sure that we keep America's priorities first and that makes 2026 the year of affordability. Your team has been fantastic to work with on the issue of housing. So I want to say thank you on that one. Number two, I will have a question for the record around an issue of 45Y clean electricity production tax credit is an issue that I would love to get a response from you not now but later on. But I do want to ask you a question, Mr. Secretary as you know economic security is national security and the Treasury Department plays a critical role in the United States national security apparatus with the emergence of digital assets. I was curious if you could touch on the Treasury's role in fulfilling President Trump's executive order that set up the Bitcoin strategic reserve and digital asset stockpile. Could you give me an update on where things stand with the implementation of the executive order? Great. Thank you. Another question on IRA accounts. President Trump signed another executive order 14403 to increase Americans' access to IRAs for those workers who lack employer-sponsored retirement plans. Also, the order directs you to prepare legislative recommendations for building upon the Trumpirra.gov. Do you have a timeline, something in mind that would be helpful for us to appreciate as relates to perhaps a Trump accounts 2.0? Excellent. I do think it's important for us to take some time on the finance committee to recognize one of the more important issues facing the American people as it relates to those, half our workers do not have access to, maybe not quite half our workers but a significant portion of our workers do not have access to an IRA and frankly having this focus from the administration I think is powerful and important and recognizes the importance of making sure that everybody has a chance to accumulate equity in this country which typically comes through either home ownership, business ownership or an equity position in the stock market. This approach provides access to that opportunity. And speaking of opportunity, as you know, it would probably be just inappropriate and shocking if I did not mention opportunity zones because I do every single time I see you because I do think it's one of those consequential pieces of legislation that has a generational impact in a positive way for the poorest communities in this country. Governors across the country are right now currently working on figuring out where they want the designations within their states on this 10-year new window. I'd love to have an update from you as it relates to streamlining the opportunity zone nomination process as well as if there are any best practices that governors should take into consideration that you have become aware of. It'd be great to hear. Mr. Chairman, I know I have two seconds left, so I'll use those two seconds pretty quickly here. Here's a bipartisan piece of legislation not supported by my friends on the other side, but every mayor that I've run into around the country, blue or red, love opportunity zones.

Senator Hassan.

Well, thank you, Chair Crapo and Ranking Member Wyden for holding this important hearing. Good morning, Secretary Bessent. Thank you for testifying. Good morning. I want to start with a question that I think should get bipartisan support. The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration recently said that the Treasury could prevent a billion dollars in fraud if Congress moved up certain deadlines for businesses to file information returns. This would help give Treasury the information it needs earlier in the year to stop fraudsters from stealing taxpayers' identities and their tax refunds. Will you commit, sir, to working on a bipartisan basis with members of this committee to advance this proposal and help the Treasury stop identity theft and fraud? Thank you very much. And just an observation, Mr. Chair, there's been discussion of a so-called settlement of a lawsuit between the president and the IRS. I just want to note that the so-called settlement is being challenged because of collusion, it appears, by the president and the IRS to the point where I'm not sure a settlement agreement actually exists because a court is considering whether this is a legitimate lawsuit to begin with. But what the Acting Attorney General did say yesterday was that despite the slush fund being off the table, at least for now, that the grant of immunity for tax liability to the president and his family still was going to be on the books. So, this is a sweetheart deal for the president. It apparently is still going forward unless a court puts a stop to it. And I think it's going to be important for the secretary to level with the American people about how much this sweetheart deal will cost them. Some news reports suggest it's at least a hundred million dollars just off the top. Now, Secretary Bessent, in May, the president said that he does not think about Americans' financial situations. Do you think about the financial situation of the American people? Well, I'm glad that you do. Do you think your boss should, too? No, look, here's what he said. He said, quote, 'I don't think about Americans' financial situation. I don't think about anybody.' So, I'm asking you, that's the direct quote. Do you think about how the American people are paying more for gas, groceries, and utilities since the president clearly said he didn't? And you speak with the president regularly. Are you trying to tell him the truth about how much costs have increased for the American people? When's the last time you were in a grocery store? Cuz my husband and I were just in one. And look, the average Granite Stater, the average Granite Stater has paid, let me be clear, the average Granite Stater has paid $3,000 more since Donald Trump took office for basic goods and services. Meanwhile, the country lost 100,000 manufacturing jobs in 2025. So, do you tell the president this information or not? Actually that's incorrect so let's move on because what's clear to me is that neither you nor the president nor this administration are willing to acknowledge how much more people are paying at the gas pump at the grocery store in utilities, for healthcare, for all aspects of American life. Nor have you acknowledged the number of manufacturing jobs that were lost in 2025. Now, let's move on. Americans are paying 2.5% more for groceries since President Trump took office, which is half the annual amount under Biden administration. We're not talking about Biden. We're talking about this administration and promise to lower costs and the fact that this president says he doesn't care. Now, let's go on to Mr. Secretary, my time is limited. I'd like to reclaim a little bit of my time because I have one more question. The administration has claimed that its top priority is lowering costs for American families. But the president instead continues to pursue vanity projects at a significant cost to taxpayers. He requested a billion dollars for the White House ballroom, spent $45 million on military birthday parade, proposed a hundred million arch at Memorial Circle, and now Treasury is planning production of a $250 bill with his face on it. Mr. Secretary, how does the president's requested billion-dollar ballroom or all of these other vanity projects lower costs for American families or help constrain spending? The president requested a billion dollars for the White House ballroom in our budget. He has spent 45 million on a military birthday parade. So... That's ridiculous and I think you know it. I'll yield back my time. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, Mr. Secretary, I don't recall back in, let's say, June of 2022 when the average national price of gasoline was $5 a gallon when we were experiencing 40-year high inflation about 9%. I don't recall Democrats being all that exercised and coming to these hearings and battering the Biden administration officials of why it, you know, living is so unaffordable. Do you recall that back in 2022, 2023? Well, what I do know, sir, is that pyromaniacs like fire, so they can't stop talking about what they did. And they, as I was trying to tell the senator, since President Trump came into office, food at home has increased by 2.5% moving back toward the Fed's 2% level and every year averaged 5%. So, it is half the price. We elevated the level and to be clear senator what we have not heard is an apology to the American people. So the other thing we haven't heard is a concern over the massive amount of fraud that we are being told about every day. Democrats wanted a clean extension of the enhanced subsidy under Obamacare, even though once it expired, people got the subsidy anyway, but they could care less that there may be 6 million people now is what the current estimate is. 6 million people or phantom people taking advantage of those subsidies costing the Treasury 25 to 35 billion a year. No concern about that from the other side of the aisle. I want to focus on fraud. The lowest estimate on an annual basis comes from GAO at $250 billion.

billion a year. We had the CEO of LexisNexis. I didn't realize he did this kind of research. They put the annual figure at about a trillion dollars. I think you've come up with your own figure. What do you estimate is the annual amount of fraud in the federal budget?

Do you have any idea how much... Okay, he's been prosecuted. He's been convicted. How much of that $178 million was recovered?

And that's my point. I don't think this is up to date, but it's the most recent figure we have. The Department of Justice publishes their list of indictments and prosecutions. About 4.7 billion dollars is being prosecuted out of a total of somewhere between 250 billion and 1 trillion dollars in fraud. So I know Dr. Oz suspended payments to what, 400 hospice centers in California. In Los Angeles has a third of all hospice centers. They suspended payment to 400 and not one of them complained. Why wouldn't one of those 400 hospice centers not complain about losing their funding?

But Democrat government officials ignored that transparency, didn't they? It was right there, they had access to it. They ignored it.

Should be a bipartisan issue, sir. So what can you do to prevent it? I mean, Dr. Oz obviously just suspended payments. I'd imagine you're somewhat limited there. I mean, I know Vice President Vance has got a fraud task force. We've got to get our arms around this and we're not going to get any help from the other side of the aisle. So it's going to have to be done through executive action. What can you actually do?

Well, we wish you luck. It is crucial. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Whitehouse.

Thanks very much, Secretary. Welcome. Have you identified any precedent in Treasury or IRS history for the agreement not to audit, investigate, or pursue any tax claims against the Trump family or businesses?

Then the leak was by a contractor. Can you tell me what contribution is being sought by Treasury or by the IRS for the harm done by the contractor? To a certain extent, your organization and the IRS are the victim of the contractor's malfeasance or negligence. What is being pursued by way of contribution by that contractor?

But there is no contribution into this particular case.

Yeah, I know you like everybody likes to say that, but the... We like to follow the law, Senator. The law is that Congress has constitutional oversight functions that do not disappear simply because there is litigation, however convenient it may be, by way of providing answers. So, we have no precedent for it. No contribution is being sought from the contractor at fault. Was there any consideration to the government in return for the benefits of no audit, no investigation, no challenge or pursuit of refunds or other penalties?

Yeah. Well, I've had a lot of times people who are before us invite me to ask my questions of somebody who's not before us, but you're the one who is before us. And I think you ought to know if there was any consideration offered or paid in return for that settlement. It's a very simple fact question. Was there or was there not consideration?

If this kind of behavior is okay with the chairman, I'll just pursue other questions. But, you know, what goes around comes around in terms of dodging questions.

I believe it's very clear that witnesses of any kind cannot discuss ongoing litigation. They can certainly discuss a fact that they are aware of. The fact that there is some litigation out there doesn't mean that a witness can't say, 'Yeah, there was no consideration.' Or, 'Yes, there was consideration.'

Was there a defense analysis memo? It's referenced in the judge's decision in Florida. Was there a defense analysis memo prepared by the IRS? And more specifically, did you see it?

This just makes no sense at all. I've been a lawyer all my life. I have some idea of what is protected when you have ongoing litigation. Whether this individual has seen an official memo from within his own department is a very simple question to answer and I think it's completely inappropriate to have this game of dodgeball be pursued without any consequences. Well, last of all, here's another question. Was there any analysis of what harm befell President Trump from having his taxes released when every president since Nixon released their taxes and he had promised to? Did anybody analyze whether there was actually any harm at all to him in those circumstances?

And you're welcome to all of that but it doesn't answer the question of whether the president actually suffered harm and you're not answering that question either.

Senator Cortez Masto.

Welcome, Secretary Bessent. Let me ask you this on a separate subject. Federal law prohibits the image of a living person from appearing on US currency and that includes the president of the United States. Isn't that correct?

Thank you. There's reporting that your US Treasurer, Brandon Beach, and his senior adviser, Mike Brown, have been repeatedly urging staff at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing to prepare prototypes of the note, a $250 bill with President Donald Trump's face on it. And in fact, in August and September, Beach provided bureau staff with mockup designs for the note, including one that shows President Donald Trump's face in the center of the $250 bill between the signatures of the president and your signature. It is also reported that the artist who said he designed the mockup told the Post that he had spoken with Trump about it. Is it true that your staff is pursuing a mockup of this bill with President Trump's face on it?

So you're acting before legislation has even passed to authorize it. Is that correct?

So if the law does not pass, do you intend to still move forward without the authorization from Congress?

Thank you. Let me ask you this question with respect to the agreement and the lawsuit settlement that a lot of my colleagues have been talking about shielding the president, his family, and corporations from any future audits. You are the acting IRS commissioner, correct?

What is your position right now with the IRS?

So you have no position with the IRS whatsoever?

All right. So there's no interaction that you have right now or responsibility over the IRS other than the commissioner's there. The commissioner has free reign and you don't have any authority to stop anything?

So there is no commissioner. So you're acting commissioner.

Okay. So for purposes of the public, let's get it straight so the public knows your involvement. There is no commissioner. There's somebody that is acting.

Yeah. I'm just trying to figure out your role with the IRS for the purpose of the public and transparency. What is your role currently with the IRS and your authority?

Oh. Oh, so you are. Okay. Got it. So, let me ask you this because you talked about not only Donald Trump and his family, but there were 400,000 taxpayers' information that was also leaked by Mr. Little John, the contractor working for the IRS. Do you intend to give them the same immunity as President Trump and his family received?

Well, that's not part of the litigation. The 400,000 taxpayers aren't part of the litigation. You have said there were 400,000 taxpayers' information that was also leaked. They're not part of that litigation. Do you intend to give them the same immunity that you gave Donald Trump and his family and corporations that were part of the litigation?

That's right. You're the acting commissioner. As acting commissioner, you had said earlier you had concerns about those 400,000 taxpayers whose documents were leaked by an independent contractor with the IRS. If you have concerns about those 400,000, do you intend as acting or whatever role it is you have as the IRS commissioner, do you intend to give them the same type of treatment?

That was not part of the settlement. That was not part of the settlement, clearly. Let me just say that was not part of the settlement. It's been very clear you're dodging this and you're trying to use it as an excuse. It's just outrageous on behalf of the American public.

When you were going through your confirmation process, you stated that your goal was to get the federal budget deficit to 3% of GDP by the end of President Trump's term. However, the administration's budget proposal for this year projects a deficit of over 5% of GDP by 2029. Do you no longer intend to achieve that 3% goal?

You said something with a three in front of it. All right. I appreciate you being here.

Senator Young.

Secretary Bessent, great to have you here today. You and I have discussed shipbuilding in the past and the importance of shipbuilding. I've seen you recently offer your thoughts about the importance of this issue and the importance of rebuilding our shipbuilding enterprise here in the United States. The president has also spoken quite forcefully about the threats associated with having a shipbuilding enterprise that is weak and unable to produce enough ships for the needs of our nation. In fact, his executive order on restoring America's maritime dominance and his subsequent maritime action plan, he highlighted with some specificity the challenges and the opportunities that we face. So I'm grateful for his leadership, grateful for yours, because we know China has invested heavily in this industry. They of course have a centrally planned economy in so many respects and they've overinvested in their capacity. I've been briefed that China can actually build over a thousand oceangoing vessels in a year. The United States built one last year, one oceangoing commercial vessel. For those who are skeptical of industrial policy, and I think that's a healthy skepticism. There's a reason we don't have a centrally planned economy, but from time to time you need to deviate from the catechism. Adam Smith himself, the father of free market economics, identified shipbuilding as the one industry that a maritime nation cannot be allowed to have offshore. So you and several other members of the cabinet, Mr. Secretary, have highlighted this need to restore our maritime industrial base. But we know we can't do it without giving the president of the United States additional authorities, resources, and authorities he needs and that is why Congress in a bipartisan way needs to pass the Ships for America Act and pass it now. Mr. Secretary, how are you thinking about these issues and do I have your commitment to work with Congress to start building ships in America again?

That's exactly it. We literally don't have, because of cheerful scenario planning in the future, we haven't thought through how we're going to repair all our Navy vessels and if necessary build new Navy vessels in a time of long war scenario. Long war is a war that might exceed just a couple of months. So it's an acute issue. I agree with you, Mr. Secretary.

That's highly encouraging. I'll take you up on that, sir. I'm going to pivot very quickly to China's advantage as it relates to critical minerals, not just as it relates to the supply, but they've come up with a way to manipulate our markets. They shape prices, they restrict exports, they absorb losses, they create all this uncertainty that keeps private capital from financing US or allied critical minerals projects. And I've come up with a solution to help address this. We call it the Secure Minerals Act. And Mr. Secretary, it's designed to create a strategic resilience reserve. And this would be a government corporation and it would employ tools like loans, acquisitions, non-recourse lending, advanced market commitments, contracts for differences and partner country co-investment. So all these different financial tools. But the goal is of course not to compete with or replace private capital. It's to create enough price stability and demand certainty to build domestic and trusted partner capacity. We want people investing in processing and digging new mines and all the rest. So Mr. Secretary, as the administration considers tariffs on processed critical minerals and derivative products, my question is should those tariffs be paired with a financing mechanism like the strategic resilience reserve to make the capacity we need commercially viable?

Well my hope would be that I can work with you to give more legal certainty to that very important Project Vault you're working on. So that after the Trump administration leaves, which will just be in a couple of years, there can be a legacy of enduring law and operations so that we've addressed this challenge related to our critical minerals vulnerability. Might I work with you on that effort?

Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

Senator Daines.

Mr. Chairman, thank you. Secretary Bessent, it's good to have you here this morning.

Grateful for all you are doing. A steady hand of wisdom there in the West Wing as you are working and solving some of our difficult challenges we face as a nation. So, thanks for your service and appreciate you being here today. And I want to start by emphasizing how pleased I was when I saw the IRS's settlement offer for taxpayers involved with conservation easement tax disputes. For years I've been sounding the alarm here on Capitol Hill on the abusive syndicated conservation easements falsely claiming a charitable donation solely to turn a profit. I'm an avid outdoorsman, guy from Montana. Protecting our farmers and ranchers and championing conservation is one of my biggest priorities as I represent the state of Montana here the past 13 years. I know this is a shared priority for you and this administration, which is why I commend you for your help in implementing and enforcing this settlement. So, it's a thank you.

I also want to thank you for your hard work as we worked together over much of the last year on the Working Family Tax Cuts Act that was passed and signed into law. We're seeing some great results in Montana. In fact, Montana received an average nearly $3,600 tax cut on their tax return this year, and about 105,000 Montana small businesses will benefit from permanent tax relief through that 20% pass-through deduction. And we know the pass-through side of the equation actually supports more jobs than the C-corp side. So we did something here that's going to be helpful to create more jobs and importantly job growth and income growth here for so many American people. And Senator, I have very clear recollection of you in the cabinet room expressing to myself, White House staff, the president the need for permanence. So I think that that will be one of your great lasting achievements once you retire.

Sir, the statistics are unbelievable. And we saw at the IRS that 61 million filers, they filed for at least one of the signature policies and we are seeing an industrial renaissance because of the immediate expensing for equipment, factories, and farm structures.

And I also believe as we think about our China strategy, having that 100% expensing in the R&D investment to incentivize innovation will be another lasting legacy from what we accomplished together over the course of last year. I'd like just to ask you an open-ended question around how passing that largest tax cut or set another way preventing the largest tax increase in American history, by making it permanent, is that making the American taxpayer better off?

Last question I have is on digital assets. Digital assets have moved from the margins now more to the mainstream. It's been clear that our tax code hasn't kept up. We bear that responsibility now to put a tax structure in place. I'm taking the lead here in the Finance Committee. As many in this committee know, that's why we've been developing now a framework that could give us clearer rules for digital asset taxation. Following the passage of the Genius Act, digital assets are becoming more integrated in our financial system and I believe are going to play a growing role in our economy and the potential to keep driving investment in the United States. The numbers speak for themselves. The total crypto market cap reached $4 trillion for the first time in history. Stablecoin transaction volume was $33 trillion, a 72% increase from 2024. The number of crypto mobile wallet users reached an all-time high, up 20% from last year. I do believe it's important that we provide some clarity as it relates to tax and that's our responsibility here that I'm working on at the moment.

The time of the gentleman has expired.

Could I finish one final question if I could? Secretary Bessent, as the administration continues its work in digital assets, will you commit to working with Congress on implementing digital asset taxation legislation? And anticipate that very much be a two-way street.

Great. Thank you.

Time of the gentleman has expired. The chairman's returned. Senator Smith.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and ranking member and welcome to the committee, Secretary Bessent. So though I've not been in the room, we have this thing called closed circuit television in the Congress. So, I've been able to watch the hearing in my office and many of my colleagues have tried to get at this so-called anti-weaponization fund that was created in a settlement with the president after he sued his own IRS for $10 billion that includes this provision that bars the IRS from auditing or taking any enforcement action on any of the president's tax returns or those of his family. And I understand your... I've heard you repeat many times that you cannot respond to this because of ongoing litigation. And I want to just associate myself with the points that Senator Whitehouse made, which is that I don't quite understand how we're able to do our oversight responsibilities if we can't ask any questions when anything is even in the vicinity of ongoing litigation. So, let me see if I can ask a question that I don't think has anything to do with the ongoing litigation. And my first question is this. Secretary Bessent, did Brian Morrissey, your former general counsel, ever raise concerns over the establishment of the anti-weaponization fund before he left his position, before he resigned?

Pardon me.

Well, let me ask this. Does Treasury agree with the Justice Department in thinking that the court decision blocking payments out of the slush fund was incorrectly decided?

And okay, I'm going to come back to that, but do you at least commit to following any and all court decisions regarding the establishment or the administration of this slush fund? Do you see those court decisions as legitimate that you would follow?

You follow the law. So, that would mean that you would follow a court decision. You wouldn't have your own opinion about what the law is. You would follow the decision of the court. Am I understanding you correctly?

You'll follow the decision of the court.

That's not what I'm saying. You know, Mr. Secretary, you've said that Acting Attorney General Blanch is representing Treasury and the IRS here. Would you have any... I mean, I'm wondering, Mr. Chair, if maybe the committee should call Acting Attorney General Blanch to appear before our committee if Secretary Bessent is unwilling to answer any questions about the IRS, which as my colleague Senator Cortez Masto established, Secretary Bessent is overseeing. I don't expect a response to that, Mr. Chair, but I mean I ask a question just reasonably. How are we going to find answers to these questions if we can't get them from the secretary?

Well, as the secretary has said many times, the attorney-client privilege and the relationship they have with Justice prevents him from answering.

What I noted, Secretary Bessent, is you didn't say that you would follow the court and their interpretation of the law. You said you would follow the law which is different as we know with this administration, but I have just a few minutes, a minute and a half left. I want to get actually to the farm economy. This is something that you and I have discussed many times starting when you first came into my office. You called yourself a soybean farmer. Though I think that most farmers, Minnesota farmers would differentiate between wealthy landowners who rent their land versus people who actually do the farming. But I can tell you that in Minnesota, Mr. Secretary, a lot of farmers are really feeling the pain. According to the Farm Bureau, farm bankruptcies were up almost 50% this last year. Minnesota has the most farm bankruptcies in the country in the first quarter of 2026. And the Farm Bureau tells us that six out of 10 farmers are reporting declining financial situations. So, it's rough out there. Fertilizer prices are up, diesel prices are up. Could you just explain to me and to farmers in Minnesota how those increased prices driven by the war in Iran are worth the pain that they are feeling right now?

Mr. Secretary, this is my time to ask you the questions. How do you respond to Minnesota farmers who cannot afford the fertilizer they need?

That is not what my farmers in Minnesota are telling me, sir. They are telling me that they cannot afford their fertilizer and they know the reason why. They know the reason.

What my farmers are...

So, I'm sure I will take that back. I will take that back to my producers in Minnesota that they have somebody in this Department of Treasury, a former farmer who is feeling their pain. Thank you.

Senator Lankford.

Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you. You know a year later after passing the Working Families Tax Cut Act, I have to tell you it's been remarkable how fast Treasury has moved on implementation in a lot of the areas we worked a lot together on things like full expensing and making that permanent and trying to be able to get that established long-term that makes an enormous difference for our farmers and ranchers that are trying to buy equipment right now to be able to do that expensing. Commodity prices are down, fertilizer prices are up but I would tell you fertilizer prices started spiking under the Biden administration, not in the past two weeks here and certainly not in the past two months. Gasoline prices now are what they were during the Biden administration in a spike and there wasn't a war in Iran and under the Biden administration. We had 9% inflation during that time period. So there's been tremendous amount of growth in the economy here which I appreciate your partnership on. We've also worked a lot on the charitable donation side of things and I appreciate the substantiation requirement information that Treasury and IRS has put out that helps a lot of folks that are donating now to nonprofits and the work that we've done together. There is still work to do on the donor advised funds. There were some Biden administration regulations that came out that were directly targeted at the donor advised funds that have caused real problems. Those are folks that are directly helping nonprofits and charities all over the country on it, but they're feeling some real pain from some additional changes in regulations. So, I know this administration's been very aggressive at reviewing regulations and looking at it. I would only ask you to review as well the Biden administration regulations on donor advised funds because that's directly taking money away from people that need it the most and folks that want to be able to help.

It is. Thank you. Look forward to that cooperation together just to be able to look at it to be able to make sure the regulations work for every American. I want to talk a little bit about what you've done so far on the sanctions on drug smuggling and specifically targeting all these cartels that are in Mexico and in Central America and South America and trying to be able to go after that. You've seen some progress. Some new techniques have been done to be able to target individuals and entities to try to limit the amount of smuggling. I want to just get an update from you. Dollars have been allocated. You've asked for additional dollars directly related to terrorism and drug smuggling and cartels. This is a budget hearing. What's happened so far? Have those budget dollars previously been used? What are you asking for additional dollars for in that?

So, you're doing the same thing to a lot of these, the shadow fleet that's out there moving Iranian oil and others as well. Give me an update on success dealing with that targeting specific sanctions on Iranian illicit movement of oil and other goods that they're trying to be able to move.

Okay, I look forward to that. I know just got a few seconds left. In Oklahoma, we had a massive influx of Chinese illegal aliens had moved into our state, set up illegal grow operations for marijuana and started shipping it literally all over the country. It was a tragic thing to be able to watch what happened to the human trafficking, the labor trafficking, the sex trafficking that these Chinese individuals were doing into my state. Not only trying to be able to purchase land and to be able to set up this operation, I want to be able to follow up with your team on just ways that we can work on following the money of illegal Chinese money coming in to buy American farmland and to also try to be able to control some operational locations near some of our sensitive sites and what you're doing there. I know you're doing a significant amount of sanctions on drug issues and such, but want to be able to just follow up on that.

Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Warren.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, Secretary Bessent, let's start with something you and I agree strongly on. Last year, you came out in support of a trading ban for members of Congress, and I have introduced legislation to do exactly that. You explained the need for a ban on our trading stock by saying, quote, 'You look at some of these eye-popping returns, every hedge fund would be jealous of them.' And that quote, 'If any private citizen traded that way, the SEC would be knocking on their door.' Those are strong words from someone who used to run a hedge fund. Last month, President Trump's latest financial disclosures came out and they show that he made more than 3,400 stock trades worth more than a quarter of a billion dollars in just the first three months of 2026. That's roughly half of what all 535 members of Congress made last year combined. And the value of virtually every one of those stocks that the president traded in is directly affected by President Trump's official actions. So, Secretary Bessent, you and I agree that it is a conflict of interest for members of Congress to trade stocks. Do you also agree that it's a conflict of interest for President Trump to trade stocks?

You think it's okay for the president to do this? Because let's be clear, you are a Wall Street guy, so you know better.

So, you're going to sit here with a straight face and say it's not a conflict of interest for the president of the United States to do that?

How about we get the White House in order at the same time?

I don't trade in individual stocks. I don't own any individual stocks. My house is in order.

Let's look at some individual trades. On January 6th, Donald Trump purchased up to a million dollars worth of Nvidia stock. One week later, his administration changed US policy and loosened the rules on export controls so that Nvidia could sell its chips to China. Now the price of Nvidia stock is through the roof. So, Secretary Bessent, you said last year if any private citizen traded the way members of Congress do, quote, 'The SEC would be knocking on their door.' So, my question is, should the SEC be knocking on President Trump's door to start an investigation over this trade?

So it's our prerogative. So you would support our saying that President Trump should be investigated over this?

And how about the White House getting its house in order? That investigation?

I would like to see the president of the United States lead by example. You say there should be an investigation when that kind of activity takes place. How about we start with the White House? President Trump bought tens of thousands of dollars worth of stock in Robinhood and the Bank of New York Mellon Corporation known as BNY. On April 6, your Treasury Department announced it had chosen the financial agent to implement the new Trump accounts program, BNY and its partner Robinhood. Both stocks of course have risen since then. So, Secretary Bessent, let me ask you a different question. If these stock purchases that Trump made were made using inside information, would that be illegal?

Would it be worth investigating?

Why don't we investigate many people in this committee, Senator?

And you... Why don't we... We should have to follow the same set of rules that are already the law?