A federal judge has voided a controversial settlement agreement between President Donald Trump and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), ruling that the underlying lawsuit did not satisfy the constitutional requirements for a legitimate legal dispute. The case originated after President Trump, his sons Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, and the Trump Organization sued the IRS and the Department of the Treasury over the unauthorized disclosure of Trump’s confidential tax returns in 2019.

The lawsuit sought approximately $10 billion in damages, arguing that the government had failed to protect confidential taxpayer information. The leak was traced to a former IRS contractor who had previously been convicted and sentenced to prison for stealing and releasing tax records

The decision represents one of the most significant judicial setbacks for the Trump administration in recent months and raises new questions about presidential authority, government ethics, and the limits of executive power. U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams ruled that President Trump, and the IRS were not genuinely adverse parties, a requirement under Article III of the Constitution before federal courts may hear a civil lawsuit…

Texas sits on some of the richest lithium-brine deposits in North America.

But that’s the problem. All that lithium is just sitting there. It’s the largest energy-producing state in the country with a massive energy workforce of nearly 500K people, but few companies are prepared to unlock it.

Meet EnergyX, the company leading the lithium revolution.

EnergyX just opened Project Lonestar™, America’s largest lithium production demo facility of its kind in the United States. It’s already producing 250 tons of lithium annually, and the commercial plant is projected to produce 50,000 tons annually at full-scale. That’s a $1B/year revenue opportunity.

With rights to up to 15M+ tons of lithium across the Americas, they’re now preparing for their biggest chapter yet: commercial production.*

General Motors, POSCO, and Eni have already invested alongside 50,000+ everyday investors. Join them and become an early-stage shareholder before the July 16th deadline.

The ruling does not bear on the fact that Trump’s tax information was improperly disclosed, nor does it determine whether he suffered damages from that disclosure. Instead, it focused on whether the settlement itself complied with constitutional principles governing federal courts and whether government attorneys fulfilled their ethical responsibilities while negotiating the agreement. The court concluded that those standards had not been met.

Because the President is the head of the executive branch of government, and the IRS is part of the executive branch, legally they are one entity and therefore cannot be adverse parties. Although the administration later withdrew plans for a proposed $1.8 billion ‘Anti-Weaponization Fund,’ an accompanying agreement also provided sweeping protections that would have prevented the IRS from pursuing many existing or future tax-related claims involving President Trump, members of his family, and affiliated business entities.

That type of blanket protection is common in third world dictatorships and in countries where there is no rule of law, such as Russia. Indeed, Russian law provides exactly the kind of blanket immunity for Vladimir Putin and his family that President Trump sought for himself and his. The result in Russia has been a major increase in corruption because relatives of Putin cannot be prosecuted; they can and do steal openly and with impunity.  

In addition to voiding the IRS settlement with President Trump, Judge Williams also referred senior Justice Department officials involved in approving the agreement to state bar authorities for possible ethics investigations. Knowingly arguing a case that fails to meet minimum U.S. legal standards could be grounds for disbarment for the attorneys involved.

Politically, the ruling is likely to provide fresh ammunition for congressional critics who have accused the administration of using executive authority for personal benefit. The referrals for possible attorney discipline may also increase scrutiny of senior Justice Department officials and could influence upcoming confirmation hearings and congressional oversight investigations.

By emphasizing that courts cannot be used to approve agreements between parties that are not genuinely in legal conflict, Judge Williams’ ruling reinforces constitutional limits on executive power.

*Disclaimer: Energy Exploration Technologies, Inc. (“we”, “us”, “our”, and “EnergyX” is conducting an offering of securities pursuant to Regulation A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. An offering statement covering this offering has been qualified by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). Neither this communication nor any of its content constitutes an offer to sell, solicitation of an offer to buy or a recommendation for any of our securities by our company or any third party. Offers and sales of the securities are being made solely by means of the qualified offering circular. Investing in our securities involves significant risks. Before investing, you should consult with your financial advisor, accountant, and/or attorney legal, and carefully review the qualified offering circular (including the “Risk Factors” section) and any offering circular supplements.

The most recent qualified offering circular is available at https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1830166/000149315226017123/form253g2.htm. The most recent qualified offering circular and any supplements can also be found on the SEC’s EDGAR filing database, available at www.sec.gov/edgar/search/. Prospective investors should note that neither the SEC nor any federal or state securities commission or regulatory authority has approved or recommended our securities or determined that our offering circular is truthful or complete. Any representation to the contrary is unlawful. We are not a broker-dealer or investment adviser registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. No communication made by us or any of our affiliates, through this communication or any other medium, should be construed as a recommendation to purchase, sell, or hold any securities, or as investment, tax, financial, accounting, legal, regulatory, or compliance advice. Neither this communication nor any of its content constitutes an offer to sell, solicitation of an offer to buy or a recommendation for any of our securities by our company or any third party. The content presented here is provided for general information purposes only and is not intended to solicit the purchase of securities or to be used as investment, legal or tax advice. Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Statements The information presented herein may include forward-looking statements, estimates, or projections regarding our anticipated future performance. If present, these statements are subject to risks, uncertainties, and assumptions. In some cases, you can identify these statements by forward-looking words such as “may”, “might”, “will”, “should”, “expect”, “plan”, “anticipate”, “believe”, “estimate”, “predict”, “potential”, “future” or “continue”, the negative of these terms, and other comparable terminology. Such forward-looking statements are based on current plans, estimates and expectations and are made pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements, estimates and projections, if any, are based upon various assumptions made concerning our anticipated results and industry trends, which may or may not occur. We are not making any representations as to the accuracy of any such forward-looking statements, estimates or projections. Our actual performance may be materially different from any such statements, estimates or projections. We are under no duty to update any of these forward-looking statements to conform them to actual results or revised expectations.