Gov. Gavin Newsom says California will tax Californians who receive money from President Donald Trump’s nearly $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund, a response to growing backlash over a $1.776 billion DOJ settlement that critics call a slush fund to compens
California moved to put a price tag on money coming from President Donald Trump’s nearly $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund. with Gov. Gavin Newsom saying Wednesday. March 27. that the state will tax any Californian who receives compensation from the DOJ settlement tied to the president’s IRS lawsuit.
The warning landed in a politically charged moment: California is already signing new election-related safeguards, while the Justice Department’s fund has triggered sharp outrage from Republicans and legal challenges from people who say the program could fuel more violence.
Newsom said during a press conference on May 27 that California would take action against recipients. “Any one from California that receives any of those funds, we want to tax 100% of those proceeds,” he said. “That’s an action the state of California can take, it’s an action we look forward to taking.”.
Newsom’s comments came after he signed Senate Bill 73, a measure meant to strengthen California’s election protection and create new safeguards for “voters, election workers, and ballots from intimidation, interference, and unauthorized law enforcement activity.”
The fund at the center of the fight is tied to the Justice Department’s decision to offer a $1.776 billion settlement after Trump dropped a $10 billion IRS lawsuit. The DOJ described it as an “anti-weaponization” effort intended for “victims of lawfare and weaponization.”
Criticism has swelled since the announcement, with opponents arguing the structure lacks enough guardrails over who receives money. “The nation’s top law enforcement official is asking for a slush fund to pay people who assault cops?” Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, said in a statement on May 21. “Utterly stupid, morally wrong – take your pick.”.
Federal legal pressure has followed. A few days after the DOJ announcement, two U.S. Capitol police officers—Harry Dunn and Daniel Hodges—who defended the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, filed a lawsuit in Washington, DC, seeking to block the administration from using the funds.
The plaintiffs argued the fund’s creation endangers their lives by encouraging people who attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6 to continue acting violently. They also claimed it would finance rioters, paramilitaries and other supporters who threatened their lives on Jan. 6 and “continue to do so.”
“To prevent the public financing of paramilitary organizations in the United States, and to protect Plaintiffs from further violence, the fund must be dissolved,” the suit said in court filings.
On May 27, the pressure widened again when a bipartisan group of 35 federal judges filed a lawsuit in Florida asking the court to reopen the legal case between Trump and the IRS and investigate whether the out-of-court settlement was an act of fraud against the court.
The ex-judges argued Trump and co-plaintiffs did not mention a planned settlement in their motion to withdraw the lawsuit against the IRS, and that “Court was deceived.”
Trump has defended the program throughout the backlash. Last week, he wrote on Truth Social that he is “helping others, who were so badly abused by an evil, corrupt, and weaponized Biden Administration, receive, at long last, JUSTICE!”
The dispute has now crossed into state policy as well, with Newsom signaling that California will not just criticize the federal approach—it will also tax proceeds coming to state residents who receive money from the fund.
In parallel. the episode shows how quickly a federal settlement can turn into a patchwork of legal battles and political counter-moves: DOJ has proposed a large compensation pool tied to Trump’s IRS case. critics argue it lacks guardrails and could reward those tied to Jan. 6 violence, lawsuits try to stop the payments, and California now plans to tax recipients through state authority.
As this unfolds, the tension remains concentrated on a single question—who the money is meant to reach, and what happens when the people opposing it argue that distribution could raise the stakes for public safety.
California tax Gavin Newsom anti-weaponization fund DOJ settlement IRS lawsuit Trump slush fund lawfare Mitch McConnell Jan. 6 Capitol police officers Harry Dunn Daniel Hodges Senate Bill 73 election protection
So they’re taxing people for getting money? That seems messed up.
I don’t even get it, is this about taxes on Trump or taxes on Californians who got a settlement? Like why would CA punish people for a DOJ deal. Seems like Newsom just wants to make it political.
Wait, I thought Trump’s “anti-weaponization” fund was for like, protecting people from attacks, not “assault cops”?? But then it says slush fund and legal challenges, so who is actually paying who. If they tax 100% then basically nobody’s gonna want the money, right? Or is that not how it works.
Newsom acting like he’s stopping violence but he’s signing election safeguards and also putting taxes on receipts from the settlement… sounds like he’s picking winners/losers. I saw on Twitter it’s already tied to IRS stuff, so maybe this is all just about the government taking its cut again. Also $1.8 billion is insane, so even if it’s “victims” or whatever, you know people will twist it. Not surprised Republicans are mad, they’re mad about everything.