Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsJamie Raskin coming up on Lawrence to explain
why the THUG fund is unconstitutional
10 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Jamie Raskin coming up on Lawrence to explain (Original Post)
malaise
Thursday
OP
Trump's nearly $1.8 billion slush fund is unconstitutional, illegal and a fraud on the court--and the country.
LetMyPeopleVote
Yesterday
#4
Federal income tax experts tell POLITICO money from the DOJ's Judgment Fund, which the new program is drawing on, is gen
LetMyPeopleVote
Yesterday
#8
Jamie is on Chris Hayes now discussing a remarkable day of judges fighting back
malaise
19 hrs ago
#10
BeneteauBum
(828 posts)1. Is there a link here? I don't see anything.
Peace ☮️
LetMyPeopleVote
(182,629 posts)2. Raskin was great
malaise
(298,346 posts)3. He was fabulous
Rec
LetMyPeopleVote
(182,629 posts)4. Trump's nearly $1.8 billion slush fund is unconstitutional, illegal and a fraud on the court--and the country.
malaise
(298,346 posts)5. Thanks
Rec
CBHagman
(17,546 posts)6. The audio-only version of that episode of The Last Word is available too.
Rec
LetMyPeopleVote
(182,629 posts)8. Federal income tax experts tell POLITICO money from the DOJ's Judgment Fund, which the new program is drawing on, is gen
Raskin mentioned this last night.
Federal income tax experts tell POLITICO money from the DOJ's Judgment Fund, which the new program is drawing on, is generally taxable.
Politico
— Merry Christmas, as in the other place. (@hellobluesky5694.bsky.social) 2026-05-29T08:26:17.506Z
'Trump could be on the hook for taxes on his .8 billion 'Weaponization Fund'
Federal income tax experts tell POLITICO money from the DOJ's Judgment Fund, which the new program is drawing on, is generally taxable.'
' potentially costing hundreds of millions of dollars.'
A ray of hope.
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/05/28/trump-anti-weaponization-fund-big-tax-bill-00938957
President Donald Trump isnt supposed to directly profit from the dismissal of his lawsuit against the IRS.
And yet, he could still owe taxes on the money going to set up a central feature of that deal the $1.8 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund.
Some tax practitioners say the way that the fund, which Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche announced May 18, is structured likely makes it an income tax liability for the president, potentially costing hundreds of millions of dollars.
The argument stems from the fact the Trump administration is setting up its new anti-weaponization initiative through the Treasury Departments Judgment Fund, which Congress set up decades ago to automatically pay federal court settlements.
Payments from the fund can only be made to actual litigants, and proceeds from legal settlements generally are taxable, with an exception for compensation for medical injuries or sickness.
Senior administration officials and critics alike have said this is a particularly unusual use of the Judgment Fund, with little to no precedent for how the money setting up the anti-weaponization pool might be taxed. The White House referred questions to the Justice Department.
But effectively, a range of federal income tax experts said Trump appears to be the beneficiary of the $1.8 billion, even if the money is eventually routed to others through the five-person commission responsible for disbursing the fund.
And yet, he could still owe taxes on the money going to set up a central feature of that deal the $1.8 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund.
Some tax practitioners say the way that the fund, which Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche announced May 18, is structured likely makes it an income tax liability for the president, potentially costing hundreds of millions of dollars.
The argument stems from the fact the Trump administration is setting up its new anti-weaponization initiative through the Treasury Departments Judgment Fund, which Congress set up decades ago to automatically pay federal court settlements.
Payments from the fund can only be made to actual litigants, and proceeds from legal settlements generally are taxable, with an exception for compensation for medical injuries or sickness.
Senior administration officials and critics alike have said this is a particularly unusual use of the Judgment Fund, with little to no precedent for how the money setting up the anti-weaponization pool might be taxed. The White House referred questions to the Justice Department.
But effectively, a range of federal income tax experts said Trump appears to be the beneficiary of the $1.8 billion, even if the money is eventually routed to others through the five-person commission responsible for disbursing the fund.
If this fund goes through, trump should be taxed on the full amount and not get a tax deduction for the money distributed to the beneficiaries of this fund
malaise
(298,346 posts)9. Raskin was brilliant
as always
malaise
(298,346 posts)10. Jamie is on Chris Hayes now discussing a remarkable day of judges fighting back
Good stuff
