309
Newsom to impose 100% tax on California payees of Trump’s $1.8bn fund
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 May 2026
309 points (100.0% liked)
politics
29884 readers
1876 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm pretty sure he's not imposing it unilaterally, but sending a bill to the Democrat-controlled California legislature, where it will easily pass. He's also in good company, with several other governors introducing similar legislation in their own states:
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/05/27/newsom-vows-100-percent-tax-on-doj-anti-weaponization-fund-payouts-00939587
Ah, so he's not actually doing anything anyone else couldn't do, he's just asking other people to do something. That makes more sense but I would not have gotten that out of this headline.
That's because both he and the people who hate him get a benefit out of pitting him against Trump. So they'll get more ad revenue with that headline.
But an average person trying to get this bill through the legislature committees, and both chambers, and signed by the governor, would face a much longer process. Whereas it's fast-tracked by being pre-approved by Newsom and written up by a legal team with a proven record.
I do think it's an excellent idea, for as long as Trump is in charge of who's getting money. If sanity ever returns to the White House and deserving people like E. Jean Carroll start to be eligible, the percentage could be adjusted.
This is what they should be doing to anyone who works in immigration enforcement as well. Like, I get that it's likely to be successfully challenged but so fucking what, let it trickle through the court while states rip back from DHS what the admin has illegally refused to disburse to them in grants and other funding.