Trump says anti-weaponization fund in IRS settlement is 'dead' even as he defends it

Conservative principles face implementation challenges as policy meets political complexity.

Source: Washington Times
1 min read
Why This Matters

Trump saying a $1. 8 billion fund is both "dead" and worth defending in the same breath is the kind of thing that would get mocked mercilessly if any other politician said it. But that's genuinely where things stand right now, and it's causing real problems for him.

New Republican Times Editorial Board

Trump says anti-weaponization fund in IRS settlement is 'dead' even as he defends it
Image via Washington Times

President Donald Trump said Friday that his $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund is "dead" while also continuing to defend it, further complicating his administration's negotiations with two Republican senators who are blocking his attorney general nominee in protest.

Original source:

Read at Washington Times

How We See It

New Republican Times Editorial Board

Trump saying a $1.8 billion fund is both "dead" and worth defending in the same breath is the kind of thing that would get mocked mercilessly if any other politician said it. But that's genuinely where things stand right now, and it's causing real problems for him. Two Republican senators are holding up his own attorney general pick over this, which is not a small thing. That's not Democrats playing procedural games. That's his own party saying the administration hasn't sorted out what it actually wants to do about IRS weaponization.

Here's the part that matters: the underlying issue is legitimate. People on the right have spent years pointing to real cases where the IRS went after conservative groups, nonprofits, and individuals in ways that looked a lot like political targeting. A fund meant to address that isn't some fringe idea. But you can't fix a trust problem with an agency by negotiating it in public through contradictory statements. If the fund is dead, say it's dead and explain what replaces it. If it's alive, defend it with actual terms senators can vote on.

What's frustrating here isn't the goal, it's the execution. Holding up an AG nomination as leverage is a legitimate tool for senators who feel ignored, but it only works if there's something concrete to negotiate toward. Right now there isn't, and that's on the administration to fix, not on the senators for asking questions.

Commentary written with AI assistance by the New Republican Times Editorial Board.