In their fanatical obsession with resisting President Trump, Democrats have come up with a plan to further punish the people who were victimized by the Biden administration's weaponization of government. Yesterday, several Democrats, including California Governor Gavin Newsom, New York state Assemblyman Alex Bores, and New York Governor Kathy Hochul, signaled their intention to confiscate 100 percent of any payment from the Trump Anti-Weaponization Fund, calling it a tax.
That's unconstitutional for several reasons, and also incredibly short-sighted. The Democrats wrongly believe this fund is only for January 6 defendants, but it's not. Anyone who feels they were unfairly prosecuted by the government can apply, and cases will be reviewed individually. This means Democrats could, in theory, confiscate a payment to one of their constituents.
Then again, Democrats have long dreamed of a 100 percent tax rate, so why would they care about that?
But even Politico is warning Democrats that this scheme is legally dubious.
Blue states’ plan for 100% tax on Trump’s ‘anti-weaponization’ payouts not as easy as it looks https://t.co/r1Bw6TdaB4
— POLITICO (@politico) May 29, 2026
Here's more:
State lawmakers are working together and sharing legislative text in hopes of levying a 100 percent income tax on any payments from the $1.8 billion fund, created through the settlement of President Donald Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS. And their governors are taking interest, with California Gov. Gavin Newsom endorsing the proposal Wednesday and New York’s Kathy Hochul signaling Thursday she’d be open to it as well.
...
But it’s also an open question if blue-state governors and legislators, in their zeal to hit back at Trump, have crafted policies that won’t stand up in court.
Joseph Bishop-Henchman of the National Taxpayers Union Foundation stressed that the judiciary generally defers to lawmakers on tax matters, but that judges could have a variety of questions about whether a 100 percent levy on fund payouts passed constitutional muster.
“It would be an unusual thing for states to do, which normally would cut against them,” Bishop-Henchman said. “But the entire issue is also unusual.”
...
Taxes that large could be ruled bills of attainder, which are effectively laws that bypass the courts to target specific groups. But Bishop-Henchman noted that the Supreme Court has only twice struck down state laws for that reason, neither of which happened in the last 150 years.
Judges could also examine whether taxes targeting fund disbursements were confiscatory or exceeded constitutional bans on excessive fines. The judiciary has struggled to articulate when big tax rates bleed into the seizing of property, Bishop-Henchman said, noting that the courts have blessed top federal income tax rates north of 90 percent.
“But it would be hard to argue that a 100 percent tax is anything other than a taking,” he said.
Corey Husak, director of tax policy at the left-leaning think tank Center for American Progress, said states were within their authority to tax “anti-weaponization” awards, just as they would unemployment insurance and other government payments. But because the agreement establishing the fund does not explicitly require the payments be made public, he said, states may have a hard time collecting taxes on them.
What this means, of course, is that Democrats will waste taxpayer time and money defending these illegal plans in court, and likely have to spend even more taxpayer money to pay fines and lawsuits stemming from what legal professionals are saying is a likely unconstitutional plan.
The whole concept makes no sense. Anyone receiving a payment for their pain and suffering under Biden would just move to Florida and keep their payout.
— Profile 1776 🖍 🇺🇲 (@From_1776) May 29, 2026
As the article notes, tracking these payouts would be challenging to begin with. But yes, any payout would be enough to move to a state that's not greedy, evil, and insane.
McCulloch vs. Maryland ... States cannot use their taxing power to negate, obstruct, etc. a federal program they disagree with, oppose, etc..
— 603IronMarshal2 (@603IronMarshal2) May 29, 2026
This is a legal argument that could carry weight.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent nuked the idea yesterday, too, telling the press, "There's no cure for stupid."
I’m sorry but 100% tax is not a tax. 100% Tax is actually a disguised confiscation. As it is now, the taxation limits levels are egregious. At some point at 100% is definitely over that point tax taxation becomes theft. 100% tax is theft.
— 50 Year Old White Guy Lawyer (@50yowhiteguys) May 29, 2026
The theft is the point. Democrats believe the weaponization of government is good and just when it's directed towards their political opponents. They want the government to have the power to destroy your livelihood, take your freedom, and ruin your life simply because they don't like the way you voted, and not be held accountable for it.
Editor's Note: The Democrat Party has never been less popular as voters reject its globalist agenda.
Help us continue exposing Democrats' plans to lead America down a dangerous path. Join Townhall VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member