State’s governor looks to thwart US president’s plan to divert money to allies, including January 6 rioters
California governor Gavin Newsom is looking to thwart Donald Trump’s $1.776bn “anti-weaponization fund” by imposing a 100% tax on any payout received by state residents.
In May, the Department of Justice (DoJ) announced a fund to compensate alleged “victims of lawfare and weaponization”. It’s unclear who qualifies under this category.
The fund was the product of a settlement reached between Trump and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) – the agency the president sued over his leaked tax returns.
Critics, including Newsom, have slammed the fund as a “boondoggle” designed to divert money to Trump’s allies. Speculation has swirled that its benefactors could include the individuals who were arrested in the 6 January 2021 siege of the US Capitol. The Trump administration has described the rioters as patriots and since pardoned many who were charged in relation to the attack.
The police can take money from citizens on suspicion but no evidence of criminal activity.
Why wouldn’t California be able to take money given to criminals by criminals that was fraudulently taken from the IRS in the first place?
I think you’d need to make the argument that a slush fund payout is directly profiting from your crime but you’d have to argue that
States have the right to levy taxes. This is a special income tax, not a fine. The state isn’t suing anyone, they are just defining a form of income having a certain tax rate.
Because all persons are created equal, but corporate persons are more equal than others.
Would the Supremacy Clause apply here? Genuinely not sure, because it’s not California superseding federal law per se (as preventing the payments entirely would likely be), it’s just them doing something after-the-fact which is contrary to the goals of the federal government.