296

Newsom to impose 100% tax on California payees of Trump’s $1.8bn fund (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 8 hours ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

27 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

top 27 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 2 points 11 minutes ago

This is the correct thing to do.

The only change that I would make would be to earmark the taxed money to be given out to genuine victims of the Regime: those raped by Trump, police officers assaulted on January 6th, unlawfully fired Federal government workers, lawfare defense, and people accosted by ICE.

[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 8 points 2 hours ago

I like Newsom’s energy in getting attention to another of the administration’s illegal actions

…. But can this actually happen or is it just noise?

[-] Mycatiskai@lemmy.ca 6 points 52 minutes ago

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?

[-] stardreamer 2 points 33 minutes ago

Because all persons are created equal, but corporate persons are more equal than others.

[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 18 minutes ago

states do not have jurisdiction over irs, no “standing”
the new crime was not perpetrated by the defendant. Trump illegally taking money from IRS as a slush fund to criminals who forward hi s desires is his crime

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

[-] TipRing@lemmy.world 2 points 6 minutes ago

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.

[-] 7101334@lemmy.world 1 points 25 minutes ago

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?

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.

[-] Serinus@lemmy.world 10 points 3 hours ago

The recipients are secret, but at least they'll be committing crimes when they don't declare the income on their taxes.

[-] Microtonal_Banana@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 hours ago

Trump is just going to keep it all.

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 3 points 2 hours ago

Newsom: *moves up 1 in the 2028 standings*

Lemmyleft: *rends garment*

[-] BeardededSquidward 4 points 1 hour ago

I like the clap backing Newsom does but he's a shit politician who is only slightly less right than Fetterman.

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

I know little about him, as I expect most of the country does other than he seems ready willing and able to take the piss out of the demented rapist, and that’s such a rare commodity, somehow, that it’s worth political capital.

His state has a lot of electoral votes, he’s a white male, and would likely attract big money to run. Strictly speaking, it seems likely he’ll be a frontrunner, but I expect we’ll be right back to arguing the Dems need to lose again and go through all this *gestures* again.

[-] BeardededSquidward 3 points 1 hour ago

He is particularly harsh on telling law enforcement to break up homeless camps regularly, shows no concern to the growing amount in his state, he holds conservative beliefs on trans rights. https://abcnews.com/Politics/california-gov-gavin-newsom-breaks-party-transgender-athletes/story?id=119559011
https://www.pacificresearch.org/newsom-has-failed-on-homelessness-and-it-shouldnt-be-hard-so-hard-to-spot/

[-] 7101334@lemmy.world 1 points 17 minutes ago* (last edited 15 minutes ago)

Don't forget that he vetoed unemployment pay for striking workers, vetoed decriminalization of psychedelics (in other words, the aspiring future leader of "my body my choice" party wants to put people in prison for what they do with their bodies), and frequently flaunted COVID restrictions which he put in place.

He also did nothing about corporations stealing (and now ruining) the legal cannabis industry. Voters who voted to pass cannabis legalization did so under the context of an acreage cap: no corporation could own more than... 2 acres? I don't know the exact number off the top of my head, but the idea was, it's small enough to keep corporations from dominating but big enough to allow them decent operating room.

Lawmakers went behind the electorate's back and removed the acreage cap. Newsom did nothing, and was buddy-buddy with corporate cannabis people like Big Mike, so why would he? This resulted in corporate cannabis, including professional boof cultivators like Glass House Farms (owned by a MAGA-supporting cop), dominating the legal industry. Their weed is garbage, which is why ~75% of cannabis sales in California occur in the legacy market ("illegal" under bullshit laws that everyone should ignore).

He also hosts conservative shitstains on his podcast, though if he was actually ideologically righteous, I could potentially excuse that as genuine outreach. But he's not, so I don't.

He was doing homeless sweeps and talking about his undying support for Pissrael when Republicans were on the up-trend. Now everyone hates Republicans, so suddenly Newsom is refusing money from AIPAC and doesn't talk so much about the problem of having to witness poors in the street. He stands for nothing but his own gain.

Here's a photo op he did of him throwing away, potentially, the only worldly possessions of homeless people. He presumably retreated to his Napa Valley winery after this. Fucking parasite.

[-] fizzle@quokk.au 53 points 7 hours ago

I like the energy here but... I dont think much of this money is destined for Jan 6 idiots. Surely their usefulness to Trump is finished.

[-] leadore@lemmy.world 5 points 2 hours ago

The money is to whoever trump wants to give it to for whatever reason with zero accountability. It doesn't matter whether any Jan 6ers get any of it, it's 100% illegal theft of taxpayer money by trump.

[-] flandish@lemmy.world 9 points 4 hours ago

oh it’s just manufactured midterm consent. the money is advertising more than anything else.

[-] LesserAbe@lemmy.world 24 points 7 hours ago

It doesn't say they would only tax jan 6ers, it says any state residents who receive a payout

[-] fizzle@quokk.au 24 points 6 hours ago

Yes, but the types of people Trump needs a slush fund to pay, are the types of people that can arrange to receive the money in the most advantageous jurisdiction.

[-] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip 3 points 7 hours ago

i also assume so. and in the case these assholes would receive something, i assume they would just move after this pr stunt?

[-] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 hours ago

Having them move away would be a net benefit to the state, so win-win.

[-] Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

My ~~neighbor~~ Fox news told me ~~coyotes~~ Democrats keep ~~eating~~ stealing his ~~outdoor cats~~ tax breaks so I asked how many ~~cats~~ tax breaks he has and he said he just goes to the ~~shelter~~ Treasury and gets a new ~~cat~~ tax break afterwards so I said it sounds like he’s just feeding ~~shelter cats~~ tax breaks to ~~coyotes~~ Democrats and then his ~~daughter~~ president started crying

Edit: edited in a rush, need better words than tax break

[-] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago

Crazy their state constitution allows the governor to just unilaterally impose taxes like this, I would have thought that would be something their legislature has to do

[-] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 19 points 4 hours ago

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

[-] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

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.

[-] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 hour ago

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.

[-] FatCrab@slrpnk.net 2 points 3 hours ago

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.

this post was submitted on 28 May 2026

296 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

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News