admin
Rep. Jamie Raskin went on ABC’s This Week and labeled the reported Trump‑IRS settlement plan “unconstitutional.” The news came after ABC said President Trump might drop his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS if the government created a roughly $1.7 billion fund to compensate people who claim they were hurt by alleged government “weaponization.” Raskin called the idea a “political slush fund” and warned Democrats would sue and use Congress’s power of the purse to block it.
Raskin’s argument: appropriations and the 14th Amendment
Raskin leaned hard on two big legal points. First, he said only Congress can appropriate money, so an executive‑level scheme to set up a $1.7 billion fund would be overreach. Second, he invoked Section 4 of the 14th Amendment to argue federal dollars can’t be spent to reward insurrectionists. Those are serious claims, and they deserve a straight answer — not cable theater. If a payment plan would send millions to people tied to Jan. 6, it raises real constitutional questions and political problems for anyone who thinks taxpayer money is for the public, not for political favors.
Judge Williams’ jurisdictional wrinkle changes everything
Here’s the practical twist: the federal judge handling the Trump v. IRS case has already asked whether a sitting president can properly sue an agency he controls. That “case or controversy” question could get the whole case tossed. So the timing matters. If the parties cut a deal before the judge decides, they could arguably create a payment mechanism that never faces a full legal test. That would be a procedural end‑run — and both sides should dread the precedent it sets.
Politics over process? Both sides should want transparency
Democrats are loudly outraged, calling the reported plan corrupt. Republicans should be, too — not because of partisan loyalty but because of rule‑of‑law principles. If a settlement is real, the terms must be public and sorted in court, not cooked up in secret negotiations that could shift taxpayer dollars to politically charged claims. Congress has the power to control spending; if a fund like this appears, lawmakers should demand hearings, full disclosure, and clear legal footing before a dime moves.
What should happen next
We need a clear line: litigation shouldn’t be used as a shortcut to political payments, and the Constitution’s budget rules matter. Let the court resolve jurisdiction, then let any compensation plan come through Congress or a fully transparent legal process. Until then, treat the ABC reporting and Raskin’s broadside as the start of a fight — not the final word. Lawmakers on both sides should put down the megaphones, pick up the subpoenas, and insist on daylight instead of secret settlements.
