Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 05/28/2026 10:01:46 AM PDT by Bullish
Gov. Newsom Proposes 100% Tax on Trump’s January 6 ‘Anti-Weaponization Fund’
This is Gavin Newsom’s pattern of escalating federal-state tensions to bring attention to himself
California Governor Gavin Newsom announced Wednesday he will impose a 100% tax on payments distributed from President Donald Trump’s Jan. 6th “slush fund.” And Newsom is looking forward to doing it. He said so.
Newsom is talking about imposing a 100% tax on any payments received by residents of California from the Trump administration’s $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” – called the Jan. 6 “slush fund” by Newsom.
“One thing I think we’re going to try to do … is tax 100%, anyone from California who receives any of those funds, we want to tax 100% of those proceeds and that’s an action the state of California can take,” Newsom said. “It’s an action we look forward to taking.”
BREAKING: California will impose a 100% tax on payments distributed from Trump’s Jan. 6th “slush fund.” pic.twitter.com/IIfPUQrbuc
— Governor Newsom Press Office (@GovPressOffice) May 27, 2026
The replies to the Governor’s X post spoke volumes:
“Gavin the gouger. This is how he would tax America if he was in the White House. Thief. It’s all he knows.”
“When did politics turn into ‘I’m going to spend my entire day seeing what I can block or screw up for the other party?’ instead of ‘how can I help my people?'”
“Retarded governor Newsom will also tax your America Trump Fund 401k account for your children. Because the Fascist King does not want anyone to have nice things. These are some mentally ill, deranged people.”
The Trump administration’s $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” stems from a May 2026 DOJ settlement resolving Trump’s IRS lawsuit over leaked tax returns and aims to compensate individuals claiming government “weaponization,” expected to include many Jan. 6 defendants, targeted by the Biden administration for being at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.
Approximately 1,583 individuals were federally charged with crimes associated with the attack of the U.S. Capitol, according to the DOJ. This was the largest federal investigation and prosecution effort in U.S. history, involving thousands of FBI agents and extensive use of video, geolocation, social media, and tip-line evidence. The Biden-era DOJ pursued cases with impunity, with charges filed against individuals over several years.
However, Gov. Newsom may have a Constitutional problem – the Supremacy Clause – Article VI of the Constitution.
A 100% tax could be challenged as a confiscatory “taking” without just compensation or a bill of attainder, punishing specific people without trial. Courts rarely invalidate taxes solely for high rates, but extreme, punitive targeting of a narrow group risks invalidation.
According to the IRS, under “tax implications of settlements and judgments,” the U.S. Constitution grants states significant latitude to impose income taxes on residents. California already taxes most forms of income, including many lawsuit settlements and judgments, at rates up to 13.3% plus local add-ons. A targeted high-rate tax on a specific category of income is unusual but not automatically barred.
However, if the tax singles out recipients based on political viewpoint, political activity, or federal program participation, it could violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. A neutral “100% tax on compensation from this specific DOJ fund” would invite strict scrutiny, if framed as punishing the protected conduct of the pardoned Jan. 6.
Federal attempts to tax specific “slush fund” payouts at 100% have been proposed by Democrats in Congress. The newly introduced Wyden-Schumer legislation would impose a 100% tax on Trump insurrection slush fund payments, their press release states. California Congressman Mike Thompson (CA-04) first introduced the bill in the House of Representatives earlier this week saying, “The SLUSH FUND Act would tax the President’s unethical $1.776 billion slush fund meant to benefit January 6th rioters and other MAGA enablers at 100 percent, rightfully returning taxpayers’ money back to the people of the United States.”
However, a blatant 100% “gotcha” tax targeting one federal program for political reasons, which this clearly is, would be vulnerable to challenge on discrimination, preemption, or takings grounds.
Courts clearly will be deciding these cases.
This is just another case in Gavin Newsom’s pattern of escalating federal-state tensions to bring attention to himself.
This solution-oriented fellow is offering legal help to California J6ers – the additional service of helping them set up offshore trusts. Smart.
In addition to helping J6ers apply for compensation (for 10% capped at $5k) I will offer California J6ers the additional service of helping them set up offshore trusts.
----David Johnston – LawyerOG – J6er (@DavidJo70430257) May 27, 2026
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Follow-on step — Everyone in California who receives a check from Social Security — it’s 100% taxed. Your SS check now belongs to the state government, not you.
It is very clearly a Bill of Attainder!
Although he has some very stiff competition, Gavin Newsom is clearly the worst governor in America.
He knows he can’t do this and make it stick especially politicly. All that has to happen here is that congress gives the recipient a business license for Washington DC, award the money, then lay the recipient off. California cannot collect taxes from workers out of state so they have no recourse. And to further that, Grusome doesn’t dare mess with recipients reparations as that will put him in many states crosshairs along with punish his own recipients that vote for the democratic base. He couldn’t be a better representative of the need for common sense thinking.
wy69
If Federal Law does not supersede State Law, then we no longer have a Republic.
We have a Confederacy, the democrat wet dream since 1829.
A man that wants to be President is explaining how he will use his position to punish persons he disagrees with. What other despotic plans does he have? Will he make political enemies ‘disappear’? It’s not a stretch of the imagination.
TOOK YOU UNTIL NOW TO REALIZE THAT????
THE PICTURE DURING THE FIRES OF HIM WAGGING BACK & FORTH WIGGLING HIS SHOULDERS WAS CLASSIC “HIGH AS A KITE” DRUG USAGE.
He is retarded.
“This is what Democracy looks like!”
(Shhhhhhh, we’re only going to say that again AFTER we steal the money.)
Newsom like all democrats only knows to try to take other peoples money and take bribes.
Cheap easy and stupid
I doubt courts even in kali will allow a specified confiscation tax generated by the state
Anyone collecting a payment will just move out of CA, as if they didn’t already want to before this.
All Democrat politicians in CA gets taxed 110% of their salary.
“Proposes” before what body? Does the governor have some relevance in a federal situation?
I get the feeling this guy spends most of his time in front of a mirror admiring himself and “proposing” all the great things he would do if he were important.
Such a doofus.
Tax Newsom’s winery/restaurant 100 percent. Let him feel what the working people of California feel like when state gov’t steals from workers.
Oh my, newscum has lost what little intelligence he had when he learned that he’s over and done and that he has the same chance of being elected president as kamala harris who is behind in the polls to the local dogcatcher .....
He, Ha, He, Ha!
Aren’t the Rinos in Congress going to make sure that none of the victims of Biden-era lawfare will ever get any restitution anyway?
“If Federal Law does not supersede State Law, then we no longer have a Republic.
“We have a Confederacy, the democrat wet dream since 1829.
You’re off by about 50 years.
State supremacy would be a return to the Articles of Confederation which governed the United States from 1781 to 1789.
There was no executive branch, no national power of taxation, no supreme court.
George Mason and Patrick Henry were among the Anti-federalists who opposed the Constitution because they predicted that it grant too much power to the new central government.
“Drafted during the Revolutionary War, the Articles created a highly decentralized system that prioritized state sovereignty and independence.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.