Connect with us

Economics

How Trump’s Justice Dept. Derailed an Investigation of a Major Company

Published

on

In December 2018, a team of federal law enforcement agents flew to Amsterdam to interview a witness in a yearslong criminal investigation into Caterpillar, which had avoided billions of dollars of income taxes by shifting profits to a Swiss subsidiary.

A few hours before the interview was set to begin, the agents were startled to hear that the Justice Department was telling them to cancel the long-planned meeting.

The interview was never rescheduled, and the investigation would limp along for another few years before culminating, in late 2022, with a victory for Caterpillar. The Internal Revenue Service told the giant industrial company to pay less than a quarter of the back taxes the government once claimed that Caterpillar owed and did not impose any penalties. The criminal investigation was closed without charges being filed — and even without agents having the chance to review records seized from the company.

Caterpillar appears to have defused the investigation at least in part by deploying a type of raw legal power that rarely becomes publicly visible. This account is based on interviews with people familiar with the investigation, regulatory filings and internal Justice Department emails provided to Senate investigators and reviewed by The New York Times.

In the months leading up to the canceled interview in the Netherlands, Caterpillar had enlisted a small group of well-connected lawyers to plead the company’s case. Chief among those was William P. Barr, who had served as attorney general in the George H.W. Bush administration.

Caterpillar’s attorneys met with senior federal officials, including the Justice Department’s top tax official, Richard Zuckerman, according to agency emails. The lawyers sharply criticized the conduct of one of the agents working on the Caterpillar case and questioned the legal basis for the investigation.

A week before the agents were to interview the witness in the Netherlands, President Donald J. Trump nominated Mr. Barr to return to the Justice Department as the next attorney general. Mr. Zuckerman then ordered the interview to be canceled and the inquiry halted, without getting input from the prosecutor overseeing the Caterpillar investigation, according to the emails.

The sequence of events alarmed some federal officials and set off calls for an internal investigation.

“It appears that Caterpillar was given special political treatment that the average U.S. citizen cannot obtain,” Jason LeBeau, one of the agents who worked on the investigation, wrote to the Justice Department’s inspector general late last year.

Justice Department and I.R.S. representatives declined to comment.

“Caterpillar cooperated with the government in its review of the issues, and we were pleased to have reached the resolution with the I.R.S.,” said Joan Cetera, a spokeswoman for the company.

The roots of the investigation into Caterpillar, which makes trucks, asphalt pavers and a variety of industrial parts and equipment, dated back to 2009, when a former employee filed an I.R.S. whistle-blower claim asserting that Caterpillar had fraudulently dodged billions of dollars in U.S. income taxes by improperly parking profits in a small Swiss subsidiary.

The I.R.S. later accused Caterpillar of using “an abusive tax shelter” to understate its profits in the United States by $3 billion. A Senate committee also dug into the tax strategy, unearthing internal communications and interviewing Caterpillar’s employees and outside advisers, and raised questions about its legality.

That piqued the interest of the U.S. attorney near Caterpillar’s headquarters in Peoria, Ill. A veteran prosecutor, Eugene Miller, was assigned to the case. He worked with agents from the I.R.S. and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s Office of Inspector General, including Mr. LeBeau. (The F.D.I.C. office investigates bank and securities fraud.) Mr. Miller soon convened a grand jury and began issuing subpoenas.

Investigations of corporate tax dodges are generally civil, not criminal. This was a rare exception, indicating that the federal authorities believed that Caterpillar might have engaged in deliberate wrongdoing. (The I.R.S., too, sought the Justice Department’s approval to open a criminal investigation, though it is not clear whether the agency got that clearance.)

“I suspect this is one of the bigger paper cases you (we) will ever do,” the head of the F.D.I.C. inspector general’s office emailed Mr. LeBeau in 2016. “It’s a great case.”

In early 2017, federal agents searched and seized records from several Caterpillar buildings in and around Peoria as part of the investigation.

Two weeks later, the company announced that it was hiring some Washington heavy hitters for help. Mr. Barr was one. He was joined by James Cole, who had been the No. 2 official in the Obama Justice Department.

By early 2018, the I.R.S. had informed Caterpillar that the agency was seeking taxes and penalties totaling $2.3 billion. The U.S. attorney’s criminal investigation was also moving ahead.

Mr. Barr and his colleagues met with Mr. Miller’s boss, the U.S. attorney for the central district of Illinois, and asked him to end the investigation.

In May 2018, Mr. Barr escalated the matter. He and Mr. Cole sent a 28-page letter to Mr. Zuckerman, the Justice Department’s top tax official, and the deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein.

The letter argued that the investigation violated a requirement that federal criminal tax investigations be approved by the Justice Department’s tax division. And it took particular aim at Mr. LeBeau, saying he had a “basic misunderstanding of the relevant tax rules” and was pursuing a “conspiracy theory.” The attacks were an unusual effort to undermine the credibility of an individual investigator.

To press Caterpillar’s case, Mr. Cole met several times with Mr. Zuckerman. Whereas Mr. Cole was a powerhouse lawyer in Washington, Mr. Zuckerman had only recently moved to the capital from Michigan to join the Justice Department.

Mr. Zuckerman was not a tax specialist. He had worked for years at a Detroit law firm, where his expertise was defending companies and executives. Before that, he had been a prosecutor and in the late 1970s helped investigate the disappearance of the Teamsters boss Jimmy Hoffa.

Despite the pressure from Mr. Barr and Mr. Cole, the investigation continued. Mr. LeBeau and others traveled the world to interview former Caterpillar employees.

Then, on Dec. 6, 2018, word leaked that Mr. Trump was poised to nominate Mr. Barr to succeed Jeff Sessions as attorney general. The news quickly spread through the Justice Department.

That afternoon, a lawyer in the tax division wrote to Mr. Miller, the federal prosecutor in Illinois, to ask about the extent of Caterpillar’s objections to the ongoing investigation. Mr. Miller responded that he knew of several instances of the company’s representatives protesting. He also asked what steps would be taken to wall off Mr. Barr from the investigation.

Five days later, internal emails show, Mr. Zuckerman contacted the U.S. attorney in the central district of Illinois. Mr. Zuckerman directed him not to conduct any further investigation into Caterpillar. The U.S. attorney relayed the order to Mr. Miller.

Mr. Miller was surprised. He still had not briefed Mr. Zuckerman on the investigation. Yet he was now halting the probe after recently meeting with Caterpillar’s lawyer, Mr. Cole, according to Justice Department emails.

“I wanted to confirm the direction we just received from your office,” Mr. Miller wrote to two Justice Department tax officials. Agents had already landed in the Netherlands, and two more were about to board a flight to join them. The interview with a former Caterpillar manager was due to start in 16 hours. Canceling at the last minute “may compromise our ability” to ever interview the former manager, Mr. Miller wrote.

Mr. Miller made a plea for an explanation about why the investigation was being paused. “Perhaps if we understood the underlying reasoning, we could address those concerns and still conduct the interview,” which had taken months to arrange, he wrote.

Kevin Sweeney, who spent six years in the Justice Department’s tax division, said in a recent interview that the situation sounded “very unusual” based on The Times’ description. “I would not expect the tax division to stop an investigation based on representations made by defense counsel without first having a discussion with the lead prosecutor,” he said.

Two hours after Mr. Miller sent the email, he got a response: Senior Justice Department officials had decided “that no further action,” including the planned interview, should be taken “until further notice.” (That direction was reported by Reuters in 2020.)

The agents were at a holiday party hosted by the U.S. ambassador to the Netherlands when they got a call telling them to stand down.

In early 2019, Mr. Barr’s nomination was up for Senate confirmation. He told senators that he would abide by the Justice Department’s ethics rules regarding recusing himself from matters involving clients like Caterpillar.

Shortly after the Senate voted to confirm Mr. Barr, Mr. Miller proposed to officials in Washington that the investigation be restarted. In April, he was told to hold off, an email shows.

Judith Friedman, a Justice Department lawyer who had helped arrange the canceled interview in the Netherlands, was disturbed. “I am very concerned about this case and would like to be assured that there is no political interference going on,” she wrote to a law enforcement colleague that month in an email reviewed by The Times. She suggested that someone notify the inspector general, who can field complaints about internal misconduct.

In September 2022, Caterpillar reached a settlement with the I.R.S., which assessed $490 million in taxes over a 10-year period, plus $250 million in interest. It was a fraction of the more than $2 billion in taxes that the agency previously said Caterpillar owed. (The $490 million included other issues in addition to the Swiss strategy at the heart of the investigation.) The company noted at the time that it “vigorously contested” the I.R.S.’s interpretation of the tax rules at issue.

After the Biden administration took over in 2021, the Justice Department still didn’t pursue the investigation. At the end of 2022, the department’s tax division informed Caterpillar “that it does not have a pending criminal tax matter,” according to a securities filing. Last year, the government began returning the materials that agents had seized in the 2017 raids.

In his letter to the Justice Department’s inspector general, Mr. LeBeau said that investigators had not even been allowed to review most of the seized records, which he said was “completely unprecedented” in his 22-year career.

Glenn Thrush contributed reporting. Kitty Bennett contributed research.

Continue Reading

Economics

Companies already raise prices or plan to, blaming tariffs, data shows

Published

on

Johnson & Johnson manufacturing facility in Wilson, North Carolina.

Courtesy: Johnson & Johnson

Data from the New York Federal Reserve shows a majority of companies have passed along at least some of President Donald Trump’s tariffs onto customers, the latest in a growing body of evidence indicating the policy change is likely to stretch consumers’ wallets.

In May, about 77% of service firms that saw increased costs due to higher U.S. tariffs tariffs passed through at least at least some of the rise to clients, according to a survey conducted by the New York Fed that was released Wednesday. Around 75% of manufacturers surveyed said the same.

In fact, more than 30% of manufacturers and roughly 45% of service firms passed through all of the higher cost to their customers, according to the New York Fed’s statics.

Price hikes happened quickly after Trump slapped steep levies on trading partners, whether large or small. More than 35% of manufacturers and nearly 40% of service firms raised prices within a week of seeing tariff-related cost increases, according to the survey.

Trump announced in early April that he would impose “reciprocal” tariffs on more than 180 countries and territories, sending the stock market into a tailspin. But Trump soon rolled back or paused those levies for three months, unleashing the equity market to claw back most of its initial losses.

July deadline

Companies and investors alike are now looking to a July 9 deadline for the return of those suspended tariffs, coping in the meantime with continued confusion regarding to trade policy. The U.S. has already announced one trade deal with the United Kingdom, and Deputy Treasury Secretary Michael Faulkender said this week that the Trump administration is “close to the finish line” on some other agreements.

The New York Fed’s survey is the latest in a salvo of data releases and anecdotal reports that have shown companies’ willingness to pass down cost increases despite pressure from Trump not to do so.

Nearly nine out of 10 of the 300 CEOs surveyed in May said they have raised prices or planned to soon, according to data released last week by Chief Executive Group and AlixPartners. About seven out of 10 chief executives surveyed in May said they plan to hike prices by at least 2.5%.

Corporate executives have been careful in how they speak about the impact of Trump’s policies on their business, especially when it comes to trade, to avoid getting caught in the president’s crosshairs. Last month, for example, Trump warned Walmart in a social media post that the retailer should “eat the tariffs” and that he would “be watching.”

Consequently, survey data and anonymous commentary offer insights into how American business leaders are discussing the tariffs behind closed doors.

“The administration’s tariffs alone have created supply chain disruptions rivaling that of Covid-19,” one respondent said in the Institute for Supply Management’s manufacturing survey published Monday.

Another respondent said “chaos does not bode well for anyone, especially when it impacts pricing.” While another pointed to the agreement between the U.S. and China to temporarily slash tariffs, they said the central question is what the landscape will look like in a few months.

‘Hugely distracting’

“We are doing extensive work to make contingency plans, which is hugely distracting from strategic work,” this respondent said. “It is also very hard to know what plans we should actually implement.”

Responses to the ISM service sector survey released Wednesday revealed a similar focus on the uncertainty stemming from controversial tariffs.

“Tariffs remain a challenge, as it is not clear what duties apply,” one respondent wrote. “The best plan is still to delay decisions to purchase where possible.”

Continue Reading

Economics

Fed ‘Beige Book’ economic report cites declining growth, rising prices and slow hiring

Published

on

A store closing sign is displayed as customers shop during the last day of a store closing sale at a JOANN Fabric and Crafts location in a shopping mall following the company’s bankruptcy in Torrance, California on May 27, 2025.

Patrick T. Fallon | Afp | Getty Images

The U.S. economy contracted over the past six weeks as hiring slowed and consumers and businesses worried about tariff-related price increases, according to a Federal Reserve report Wednesday.

In its periodic “Beige Book” summary of conditions, the central bank noted that “economic activity has declined slightly since the previous report” released April 23.

“All Districts reported elevated levels of economic and policy uncertainty, which have led to hesitancy and a cautious approach to business and household decisions,” the report added.

Hiring was “little changed” across most of the Fed’s 12 districts, with seven describing employment as “flat” amid widespread growth in applicants and lower turnover rates.

“All Districts described lower labor demand, citing declining hours worked and overtime, hiring pauses, and staff reduction plans. Some Districts reported layoffs in certain sectors, but these layoffs were not pervasive,” the report said.

On inflation, the report described prices as rising “at a moderate pace.”

“There were widespread reports of contacts expecting costs and prices to rise at a faster rate going forward. A few Districts described these expected cost increases as strong, significant, or substantial,” it said. “All District reports indicated that higher tariff rates were putting upward pressure on costs and prices.”

There were disparities, though, over expectations for how much prices would rise, with some businesses saying they might reduce profit margins or add “temporary fees or surcharges.”

“Contacts that plan to pass along tariff-related costs expect to do so within three months,” the report said.

The report covers a period of a shifting landscape for President Donald Trump’s tariffs.

In early May, Trump said he would relax so-called reciprocal tariffs against China, which responded in kind, helping to set off a rally on Wall Street amid hopes that the duties would not be as draconian as initially feared.

However, fears linger over the inflationary impact as well as whether hiring and the broader economy would slow because of slowdowns associated with the tariffs.

Tariffs were mentioned 122 times in Thursday’s report, compared to 107 times in April.

Regionally, Boston, New York and Philadelphia all reported declining economic activity. Richmond, Atlanta and Chicago were among the districts reporting better growth.

In New York specifically, the Fed found “heightened uncertainty” and input prices that “grew strongly with tariff-inducted cost increases. Richmond reported a slight increase in hiring despite Trump’s efforts to trim the federal government payroll.

Continue Reading

Economics

Meet SCOTUSbot, our AI tool to predict Supreme Court rulings

Published

on

This June may be the most harried for the Supreme Court’s justices in some time. On top of 30-odd rulings due by Independence Day, the court faces a steady stream of emergency pleas. Over 16 years, George W. Bush and Barack Obama filed a total of eight emergency applications in the Supreme Court (SCOTUS). In the past 20 weeks, as many of his executive orders have been blocked by lower courts, Donald Trump has filed 18.

Continue Reading

Trending