Dramatic political gestures have been common in Sacramento, but this one stands out even by California norms. The Trump administration’s $1.8 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund, a federal payout program intended to compensate individuals who claim the Biden administration unfairly targeted them, will be subject to a 100% state tax, according to Governor Gavin Newsom. Newsom’s proposal contains a clear message: if you take federal funds, the state will return them.
Since its announcement, Democratic governors have fiercely opposed the Anti-Weaponization Fund, which was established under the Trump administration. Newsom and others have characterized it as a political incentive system, with money going to allies and, according to them, to those who took part in the Capitol disturbance on January 6. It is really debatable whether that description is fair in its whole, but the fund’s name alone was bound to cause controversy in blue-state capitals, and it did. There’s a feeling that Newsom chose to pursue both a political opportunity and a policy battle at the same time.
Compared to the typical legislative complexity, the proposal’s mechanics are almost refreshingly straightforward. If a resident of California receives a dividend from the federal fund, the state would tax that sum at 100%, which would result in no net financial benefit. After receiving the check, you would owe it. With enough Democratic seats in the California State Legislature, Newsom intends to push the bill through. However, the legal landscape is less clear. Regardless of whether the bill is passed or not, the question of whether a state may constitutionally levy a 100% tax intended to void a federal payment is still up for debate.
The coordinated nature of the response is more difficult to discount. The introduction of similar legislation by New York, Illinois, and New Jersey suggests that this is more of a blue-state strategic alignment than a Newsom solo act. Communication is necessary for that level of coordination. The governors may have had direct communication, or they may just be reading the same political script and reaching the same conclusion on their own. In any case, the outcome is a multistate wall intended to render the federal fund monetarily worthless for citizens of some of the most populous states in the union.
It’s challenging to distinguish the performance from the policy as this develops. Picking a dispute with a Trump-era fund over January 6 recipients is exactly the kind of maneuver that creates national news and sharpens a political identity.
Newsom has poorly concealed presidential ambitions. This does not imply that the fund’s core concerns are unfounded, but it does indicate that the 100% tax plan accomplishes multiple goals simultaneously, which is typically the most fascinating aspect of California politics. Whether the law is upheld in court or whether the federal government retaliates with financial pressure is still up in the air. It is evident that the battle is only getting underway.
