Staff Reports
Governor Gavin Newsom just signed a budget trailer that does something bold, brazen and legally shaky: it imposes a 100% California tax on any payments a state resident might receive from the federal “Anti‑Weaponization Fund.” He framed it as shutting down a so‑called slush fund for people who attacked democracy. Problem is, the federal fund itself is tied up in court — and California’s answer looks like a political sledgehammer wrapped in tax code.
What Governor Newsom actually signed
The bill language — tucked into the budget trailer known as SB 122 — says California will treat any settlement payments from the federal Anti‑Weaponization Fund as taxable income and then apply a 100% rate for the listed tax years. Governor Newsom celebrated the move, saying taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to bankroll people who “attacked the very institutions that protect our freedoms.” That sounds tough on crime, until you remember this isn’t a criminal conviction. It’s a unilateral state decision to confiscate money before any court decides who is entitled to it.
Legal minefield: bills of attainder and beyond
Constitutional lawyers are already rolling their eyes — and some are preparing lawsuits. A 100% targeted tax aimed at a narrow group of potential recipients raises obvious bill‑of‑attainder and excessive punishment claims. Courts usually give states wide leeway on taxes, but a law that appears to single out a named class for punishment without trial invites serious scrutiny. That’s before you factor in that the federal Anti‑Weaponization Fund is presently under a federal injunction. You can’t tax money that isn’t even moving, and you certainly can’t gloat about punishing people who haven’t been tried or found guilty.
Practical headaches and political hypocrisy
Beyond the constitutional fireworks, there are practical problems. Collecting a so‑called 100% tax on federal settlement payments will be a nightmare if those payments are confidential or if recipients decamp to other states. Tax enforcement takes paperwork and jurisdiction — not just a catchy press release. And let’s not forget the irony: this is the same governor who has loudly accused federal investigators of weaponizing the Justice Department when probes touch his circle. It’s fine to dislike a federal program; it’s odious to answer with a law that looks like political revenge dressed up as fiscal policy.
Why conservatives should push back
Conservatives should oppose this on principle and on process. We believe in due process, separation of powers and limits on what government can do to individuals who haven’t been convicted of a crime. If California can confiscate money from an entire class because a governor says so, other states will follow with their own politically targeted levies. The right response is to challenge both the federal program’s legality in court and California’s confiscatory tax on constitutional grounds. If liberty means anything, it means protecting people from being punished by politicians with a tweet and a veto pen.
