Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said a proposed settlement to compensate allies of former President Donald Trump using IRS funds is illegal and unconstitutional [1].
The critique targets the potential use of federal tax resources for political purposes. If implemented, such a mechanism would represent a significant shift in how the Internal Revenue Service operates and how federal funds are distributed to private individuals [1, 2].
Speaking Sunday during an interview with George Stephanopoulos on the ABC News program “This Week,” Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, focused on the legality of the proposal [1, 3]. He said the arrangement is a "political slush fund" [2].
"It's clearly unconstitutional," Raskin said [1].
Raskin said the proposal would use the IRS to compensate allies of President Trump, an action he said is not allowed under the Constitution [2]. The congressman said that utilizing the agency in this manner would violate established legal frameworks regarding the appropriation and use of government funds [2, 3].
The interview took place in the ABC News studio, where Raskin said why the settlement would be an illegal use of the IRS [1, 3]. He said the government cannot legally divert tax resources to provide financial benefits to political associates of a former president [2].
This criticism comes as part of a broader debate over the boundaries of executive influence over federal agencies. Raskin's position suggests that any attempt to finalize such a settlement would face immediate and severe legal challenges in federal court [2, 3].
“"It's clearly unconstitutional."”
This dispute centers on the 'power of the purse' and the legal separation between government administrative functions and political reward systems. By labeling the settlement a 'slush fund,' Raskin is signaling that the House Judiciary Committee may view any such payment as a violation of the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution, which requires that federal funds be spent only as directed by law.
