Bill Henning

@EdWhelanEPPC Sorry, his sons too. Make it $26.4T

@EdWhelanEPPC Total FY2025 spending: $7T. Total US GDP: $32T. Total payout, now we know they all are being treated the same (44,597 victims): $79.20T. Hoo boy, you think inflation is bad now; wait until they announce those other settlements.

Absurd claim by Acting AG Blanche that “the fact that it was President Trump and his sons and his company played no role in my decision.” Is anyone stupid enough to believe this?

@StateDept "So we now estimate Jan 2029."

SECRETARY RUBIO: Iran will never possess a nuclear weapon, certainly not as long as Donald Trump is President of the United States.

@HQNewsNow Not future fraud, just past. But it could make it easier to cook future books.

New reporting reveals Trump's IRS settlement will likely save him over $600M in taxed earnings from Trump businesses. This comes as the DOJ creates a new provision that protects Trump from ever being investigated for any past, present, or future tax fraud.

@CBSNews The Trump Crime Fund is awful, but if his fiance is a major tax dodger, I will be very, very impressed with her sticking with the bit.

President Trump said he is "going to try and make it" to his son Donald Trump Jr.'s wedding this weekend, even though he said it's "not good timing for me." "I have this thing called Iran and other things," he told reporters in the Oval Office on Thursday.

@AndrewDesiderio 25 plus 47 enough on your side for a veto override. Stop peeing in your bed whenever you hear the man's name.

News — Nearly 2-hour meeting with Acting AG Todd Blanche and Senate Republicans was incredibly hostile, per multiple attendees. As many as 25 GOP senators spoke (this is very rare for these meetings), all in opposition to weaponization fund. R’s pitched specific ideas such as dictating how the 5 commissioners are chosen & not allowing people convicted of violence against cops to be eligible for a payout.

@aGuyOnMyPhone I here what you're saying.

@ChrisBaynes1 @EdWhelanEPPC Only physical damages. 104a2. At least as the general rule, maybe there are oddball exceptions.

@EdWhelanEPPC A settlement for a tort is not taxable. A settlement based on a contract dispute is.

Baffling Sentence in Trump/IRS Settlement The settlement agreement between Donald Trump and the IRS states (in section IV.A): "The corpus of The Anti-Weaponization Fund’s funding [i.e., the $1.776 billion dollars set forth in Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s order] does not represent the value of any current claim by Plaintiffs [Donald Trump et al.], but rather is based on the projected valuation of future claimants’ claims, and accordingly the corpus of The Anti-Weaponization Fund’s funding is not taxable income as to plaintiffs, who receive no economic benefit from this Settlement Agreement." I find this sentence baffling in two respects: 1. The settlement’s declaration that the settlement amount “does not represent the value of any current claim” by Trump and the other Trump plaintiffs (Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, and the Trump Organization) sure seems like an admission that the settlement is collusive and in bad faith. 2. Why does the settlement assert that the funding amount “is not taxable income as to plaintiffs”? I’m no tax expert, but it’s not at all clear to me that this assertion is correct. The ordinary rule, as I understand it (and I’m happy to be corrected), is that you don’t avoid having a settlement payment treated as taxable income by redirecting it to a third party. Nor is it evident why basing the funding on something other than the value of plaintiffs’ claim would affect its taxability. (The word “accordingly” marks the passage as a non sequitur.) The evident purpose of including this provision is to attempt to foreclose the IRS from treating the funding amount as taxable, even if established principles of law render it taxable. That, I gather, is why the settlement agreement bears not only the signature of the Associate Attorney General (which would suffice to bind the United States, if the agreement is otherwise lawful) but also the signature of Frank J. Bisignano in his capacity as the IRS’s chief executive officer. Whether this seemingly collusive agreement would bind a later Administration on this point is a different matter.

@JADay @EdWhelanEPPC Maybe, assuming it's enforceability. But it explicitly doesn't address tax returns filed afterwards, and the tax treatment has to "arise out of" a matter. A future admin shouldn't just throw its hands up in the air.

@EdWhelanEPPC The addendum makes it difficult if not impossible for the IRS to challenge the tax issues arising from the fund created the day before.

@crimson_mick @MikeLevin And I'd sure like to see the expert reports Trump submitted during pre-settlement discussions.

@MikeLevin you left out that even if the SOL had not expired which it did, trump couldn't prove any economic damages, zero. Not 10 billion, not 1.776 billion. zero

This New York Times piece is worth your time. Here’s what is happening, as simply as I can put it. Back in January, Trump sued the IRS, an agency he controls, demanding $10 billion over the leak of his tax returns a number of years ago. IRS lawyers did their jobs. They wrote a memo laying out the defenses that could beat the suit, including the fact that Trump filed too late. His own lawyer was in court when the leaker pleaded guilty in October 2023, more than two years before Trump sued. The Justice Department never showed up to court. Never argued back. Never used the defenses sitting on their desk. The judge got suspicious and ordered both sides to explain whether they were actually opposing each other or just colluding. The day before that brief was due, Trump dropped the suit. Same day, his Justice Department announced a $1.776 billion taxpayer-funded “anti-weaponization fund.”  Trump gets a formal apology. The IRS agrees to drop any audits of him and his family, even though a 2024 Times report found a loss in an ongoing audit could cost him over $100 million. The acting Attorney General, Trump’s former criminal defense attorney, picks the five commissioners who decide who gets paid. Trump can fire any of them. Proud Boys and Oath Keepers are not ruled out. This is the most corrupt thing I’ve ever seen from an American president. Where in the hell are my Republican colleagues? nytimes.com/2026/05/19/adm…

@the_cats_meowww Your husband plead guilty to a felony and it looks like he spent all of three months in jail. Congrats on the windfall, but saying "what about this other fraud over here" is pretty sad.

I love how tax dollars are so important to the left when there’s a chance people who were wrongfully persecuted might be compensated, but not when illegal immigrants get free sex change surgery or billions of dollars worth of fraud is uncovered.

@rparloff ... to the third floor, and given a check.

Reupping: "Those who engaged in the attacks last week will be brought to justice." ---Trump on 1/13/21, after the House impeached him but before the Senate had voted on whether to convict.

@JeffBezos But if the payment is meaningful to them (I'm not sure how much of it is with the mix of FIT/payroll taxes not distinguishable to many), then it is a democratic tether on the behavior and spending of the government.

Thank you. The important part is zeroing out taxes on the bottom half. Best way to put money in someone’s pocket is to not take it out in the first place. Bottom half is only 3% of total tax revenue. But it’s very meaningful to that person. Zero it out.

@ElementMan4 @aduehren The statute of limitations defense feels like a slam dunk; at a minimum one worth fighting for to high heaven.

@aduehren Preparing for a defense and actually having a good defense are 2 different things. They were going to lose in court. Not sure how much they would have to pay. But they were going to lose.

Scoop: Lawyers at the IRS prepared a 25-page memo recommending that DOJ move to dismiss Trump's lawsuit against the agency. DOJ instead settled the case by creating the $1.776 billion "anti-weaponization" fund.

@HarlemJ11 @rparloff It shouldn't be paid out of the fund, but not because it was settled out of court. It shouldn't be paid because it is not compensation for Trump's claim.

It’s definitely not a settlement because it wasn’t filed with the court or acknowledged by the court, and the judge noted that in her Order Therefore it cannot be paid out of DOJ’s Judgement Fund, leaving the only way to pay for it being a Congressional appropriation Good luck with all that

The Trump/Blanche $1.776B "settlement" fund purports to be challengeable only by those who colluded to create it. ... 1/5 documentcloud.org/documents/2813…

@bluzguitar @RBReich The government spent about $3b in ALL claims in the last year. This was never a $1.8b claim, but it wasn't settled between adverse parties either.

Robert Reich is spinning a legitimate lawsuit settlement as "theft" and a "slush fund." Here's the reality: Trump, his sons, and the Trump Organization sued the IRS and Treasury for $10 billion over the illegal leak of his tax returns by an IRS contractor to the New York Times — a clear violation of taxpayer privacy laws. Trump voluntarily dropped the $10B lawsuit. In exchange, the DOJ is creating a $1.78 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund (lawfare compensation fund) for Americans who claim they were targeted by politically motivated investigations under the prior administration. This is NOT Trump pocketing the money or handing out cash with no oversight. It's a formal claims process through the DOJ for victims of alleged government abuse. Trump and his family are not taking payouts from it. Reich's claims are misleading: "Stole $1.7B from us" — This is a negotiated settlement. Dropping a $10B claim for $1.78B is a net win for taxpayers if the lawsuit had merit. "Slush fund to reward allies" — It's accountability for two-tiered justice. The Biden DOJ aggressively pursued Trump and conservatives while protecting allies. Precedents exist for compensating victims of government overreach. "Worse than Nixon" — Hyperbole. Reich ignores the unprecedented lawfare against Trump himself. Governments settle lawsuits constantly. This isn't theft — it's resolving a major privacy violation case through compromise instead of endless litigation. Critics can monitor the fund's implementation, but pretending the IRS leak and weaponization issues don't exist is pure partisan spin.

Donald Trump just stole $1.7B from us — and he's creating a slush fund to reward his political allies. I've never seen anything like this in my 50 years in politics. It makes Nixon look like a boy scout. cnbc.com/2026/05/18/tru…

@igorbobic Are there thirteen of you? This can be fixed.

Cassidy slams Trump’s $1.8B anti-weaponization fund: “I don't actually see any legal precedent for that. We are a nation of laws, you can't just make up things…people are concerned about making ends meet, not about putting a slush fund together without a legal precedent.”

@igorbobic They can pursue their claim through normal avenues if they have one. He's so spineless.

Ron Johnson says he supports Trump’s $1.8B “anti-weaponization” fund, including for some people convicted over Jan 6: “People who are harmed by government ought to be compensated by government,” he says

@smchatter1 @igorbobic Don't get hung up on that. It's a settlement; it just wasn't put on the record in court.

@igorbobic Irrelevant. Claiming the money is totally illegal based on the "dropping".

@igorbobic How about just barring the transfer?

Sen. Kennedy says he has “a lot” of questions about Trump’s $1.8B “anti-weaponization” fund: “I need to know where the money is going to come from. I need to know who would qualify. I need to know the definition of weaponization. I need to know who's been weaponized against?”