Men's Lifestyle May 21, 2026 0 Comments

Why Even Trump’s Biggest Fans Are Starting to Feel Queasy Over His Latest Deal—Here’s What You Need to Know!

Ever stumble upon a deal so sly it makes you wonder if we’ve accidentally stepped into a political Twilight Zone? That’s exactly the puzzle Anna Bower and Eric Columbus wrestle with over at Lawfare—the kind of plot twist that’s got me scratching my head long after the headlines faded. Here we have a president wielding his rightful powers, appointing the IRS Director and Attorney General, who then cook up an agreement that smells rotten enough to make a fishmonger blanch. Yet, somehow, it skirts outright illegality, dancing just beyond the grasp of the word “conspiracy.” It’s like watching a perfectly choreographed crime drama—only this one’s happening on Capitol Hill, with judges, Congress, and even Senate leaders caught in a tug-of-war with legal nuances that aren’t just murky, but downright baffling. So, can Congress actually put the brakes on this mess? Or are we all just watching a masterclass in Washington sleight of hand? Let’s unpack the tightrope act that’s got bipartisan stomachs turning, laws being stretched, and every outcome dangling on the edge of what’s just possible in this high-stakes political game. LEARN MORE

3 min read

Over at Lawfare, Anna Bower and Eric Columbus confront a conundrum that has plagued me ever since news of the president’s sweetheart deal of all sweetheart deals broke over the last couple of weeks. The way I saw it, the president appointed both the director of the IRS and the Attorney General, which he has a perfect right to do. They both acted within the powers of their offices and came up with this agreement. Now this whole arrangement smells like week-old mackerel in the noonday sun but, unless you stretch the definition of “conspiracy” all the way to Alpha Centauri, there is nothing fundamentally illegal about it.

Bower and Columbus detail the obstacles to stopping this atrocity in the courts. An example:

Could Congress sue on the ground that it never appropriated funds for this purpose? The question, somewhat surprisingly, remains disputed at this late date. Most recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held in 2020 that the House of Representatives could raise an Appropriations Clause challenge to the first Trump administration transfer of funds to build a wall along the southern border in the absence of specific congressional appropriations for that purpose. But the case became moot when Trump lost the election and the Biden administration decided not to continue building the wall, and the D.C. Circuit opinion was vacated as a result. (Full disclosure: one of us (Eric) litigated for the House’s unsuccessful effort to prevent vacatur of the D.C. Circuit’s opinion.) The Supreme Court has never weighed in on whether one or both houses of Congress may maintain such a suit.

Of course, it is extraordinarily unlikely that this House or Senate would file suit. But one or both houses may be under Democratic control come January, and might choose to pursue litigation.

But the easier remedy, legally speaking, is legislation. Congress could pass legislation at any moment to block the fund—and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has signaled he intends to try to do so via amendments to the Republicans’ reconciliation bill. If Democrats prevail in the midterm elections, they may try to do so via the normal appropriations process. Some might also want to try to claw back payments already made, although that could raise its own legal concerns.

Speaking of legality, it’s worth noting that the Treasury Department needs to certify any payment from the Judgment Fund. And under the Antideficiency Act, it is a federal crime to “knowingly and willfully” spend money not appropriated by Congress. While apparently no one has ever been prosecuted for this, there is always a first time, and counting on a preemptive Trump pardon may be an unwise bet. But a good-faith belief in the lawfulness of a payment from the Judgment Fund to the Anti-Weaponization Fund would be a sufficient defense to any such charge.

In any event, it looks like the whole scheme may be enough even to turn the stomachs of the supine Republican majorities. Senate Majority Leader John Thune already has balked, and there’s some bipartisan nausea risingin the House as well. If the Congress turns tail, we all may have to live with the fact that this administration of clowns and thieves have pulled off a perfect crime.