A Manhattan assemblyman is drafting legislation to impose a punishing state income tax on New Yorkers who accept money from the Trump administration's newly created $1.8 billion "anti-weaponization" fund, which has already drawn fire from both parties for its origins and potential uses.
Assemblyman Alex Bores, a Democrat, unveiled the plan in a video posted to social media, framing it as a way to prevent the federal fund from enriching Capitol rioters and Trump allies at taxpayer expense. "If you're a New Yorker and you take from this illegal slush fund, New York state will tax 100% of it," Bores said. "If you storm the Capitol and you take from this slush fund, too bad we're taking it."
The proposed Anti-Insurrectionist Act would ensure, according to a draft memo circulated to the New York State Assembly, that residents cannot benefit from what Bores characterizes as a "publicly-funded political payout negotiated between the President and his own Administration."
In an email to reporters, Bores emphasized the political stakes. "We can't stop Trump from breaking the law in Washington," he said. "But we can decide that in New York, money you got for attacking American democracy is fully taxable."
The federal fund emerged last week as part of a DOJ settlement with the president, created "in exchange" for Trump withdrawing a $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS alongside related claims tied to a 2022 search of Mar-a-Lago and investigations into the 2016 presidential campaign. The Justice Department said the fund would operate through a "systematic process to hear and redress claims of others who suffered weaponization and lawfare."
Since its announcement, the fund has faced criticism from unexpected corners. Republican Senator Ted Cruz reported that roughly half of Senate Republicans expressed unhappiness with the fund in a closed-door meeting with Attorney General Todd Blanche. House Democrats called it a potential vehicle for Trump to "reward allies, including the nearly 1,600 defendants convicted or charged in connection with the January 6th attack on the Capitol."
Trump has already pardoned the vast majority of those who participated in the January 6 attack. According to tracking by NPR and Seton Hall University's School of Law, between 80 and 90 of those insurrectionists came from New York state. Under Bores' proposal, any of them who accept distributions from the fund would face complete confiscation through state taxation.
The 100% rate is justified, Bores' memo argues, because these distributions are not conventional compensation. They result from no adversarial proceeding, no neutral adjudication, and no determination of legal liability made outside the president's appointed circle.
Vice President JD Vance defended the fund's openness during remarks Tuesday, noting that anyone, hypothetically even Hunter Biden, could file a claim. Yet the first person to formally request money was political operative and longtime Trump associate Michael Caputo, seeking $2.7 million for alleged targeting during Crossfire Hurricane, the FBI's investigation into potential 2016 Trump campaign coordination with Russia. The Senate Intelligence Committee concluded in 2018 that Russian President Vladimir Putin had actually attempted to interfere in that election on Trump's behalf.
Bores is among 10 Democrats competing for Congress in the district currently represented by Democratic Congressman Jerrold Nadler. His proposal echoes a similar House Democratic effort. Last week, members of the House Ways and Means Committee introduced the Slush Fund Act, aimed at preventing sitting presidents from profiting from litigation against the federal government. Representative Jimmy Panetta of California explained that the bill would impose a 100% tax on any settlement or judgment proceeds a sitting president receives from suing the government, ensuring taxpayers bear no burden.
The White House declined direct comment on Bores' bill, instead referring inquiries to the Department of Justice, which has not responded.
Author Sarah Mitchell: "Bores is betting that weaponizing state tax law against federal beneficiaries of Trump's fund will land in a crowded primary field, but the constitutional questions around retroactive punishment through taxation could derail this before it gets traction."
Comments