2026-05-20T21:58:06.786Z / 路透社
5月20日 路透电 — 法律专家表示，唐纳德·特朗普总统与美国国税局达成的全面和解协议，其17.76亿美元用于所谓政治“迫害”受害者的基金，以及禁止审计其纳税申报的条款，反对者在提起诉讼时将面临重重障碍。
国会民主党人嘲讽所谓的“反迫害基金”是将纳税人资金转移给特朗普政治盟友的“秘密资金”，监督组织则称这项税收豁免协议非法。甚至一些共和党人也表达了疑虑。例如参议院多数党领袖约翰·图恩表示，他“不太支持”这项计划。
2021年1月6日为保卫美国国会大厦、阻止特朗普支持者阻挠国会认证民主党人乔·拜登2020年选举胜利的两名警察，已经提起诉讼。这两名警察指控，该基金将奖励并纵容那些骚扰他们并发出死亡威胁的骚乱者。
法律专家称，如果由特朗普所在政党共和党控制的国会保持沉默，尚不清楚挑战者能否阻止拨款或撤销特朗普免受过往税务审计的保护。
“不再有诉讼渠道”
部分原因在于，特朗普在和解协议宣布前撤回了针对国税局的100亿美元诉讼，使得该案件的法官无法采取任何行动。
“如今已经没有渠道对这项和解协议的合法性提出质疑，”拜登政府时期曾任国税局局长的丹尼·韦费尔说道。
司法部周一宣布设立该基金，此前特朗普主动撤回了其诉讼，指控国税局在其首任总统任期内通过媒体泄露其纳税申报单存在不当行为。
特朗普同时撤回了针对政府对其2016年总统竞选团队与俄罗斯人接触调查的指控，以及联邦调查局2022年搜查其佛罗里达州海湖庄园的行动，该搜查针对其首任任期结束后留存的机密文件。根据这项和解协议，特朗普还将获得一份道歉。
周二，司法部悄然公布了一份由代理美国司法部长托德·布兰奇当日签署的补充文件，该文件“永久禁止并排除”政府对特朗普及其家人、企业提起或继续推进税务索赔。布兰奇此前曾是特朗普的私人律师。
“政治迫害或法律战”
这笔17.76亿美元的基金显然是为了纪念美国建国年份，将由特朗普的盟友掌控。
该基金将用于赔偿那些声称受到美国政府“政治迫害或法律战”损害的人。特朗普曾指责拜登政府和其他政治对手不当利用执法、情报和监管机构针对他及其盟友。
该基金将从“判决基金”中拨款，该基金由国会于1956年设立，用于支付针对联邦政府的法律索赔。
布兰奇周二对美国参议员表示，设立反迫害基金有先例可循。他援引了2010年民主党总统巴拉克·奥巴马政府时期为美国原住民农民设立的6.8亿美元基金，用于解决被称为“基普西格尔案”的长期诉讼。
布兰奇称，尽管该和解方案被联邦法官认定为公平、合理且充分，但国税局的这项和解协议不会接受法院审查。布兰奇还表示，已获得特朗普赦免的1月6日涉案人员有可能获得拨款。
诉讼资格
法律专家表示，17.76亿美元基金的反对者将很难确立提起诉讼的法定资格，也就是“诉讼地位”，因为可能难以证明他们自身遭受了某种损害。
在华盛顿联邦法院提起诉讼的两名警察声称，该基金将鼓励1月6日涉案人员继续威胁他们并可能实施暴力，因此他们面临伤害风险。
“我们的原告因此面临的威胁、骚扰和暴力风险增加，赋予了他们诉讼资格，”提起诉讼的公共诚信项目首席执行官布伦丹·巴卢说道。
亨特·拜登相关问题
一些专家表示，质疑该基金的最佳时机可能会在之后，届时索赔者——甚至包括特朗普的反对者——可能会声称他们因拨款过低而遭受损害。
曾领导司法部处理“基普西格尔案”的律师乔希·加德纳提及了前总统之子亨特·拜登。
亨特·拜登在其父担任总统期间因税务和枪支犯罪被定罪，此案由特朗普任命的联邦检察官提起，该检察官后来升任特别检察官。特朗普就职七周前，拜登总统赦免了自己的儿子。
“如果亨特·拜登提交索赔申请却遭到驳回，他不仅有权质疑驳回决定，我认为他还能挑战这项和解协议的整体架构，”加德纳说道。
“异常宽松”
法律专家表示，如果诉讼当事人能够确立诉讼资格，他们可以辩称国税局的和解协议违反了多项法律。
其中一个争议点是，该基金是否违反了美国宪法的拨款条款——该条款赋予国会财政控制权——因为美国议员并未批准这项基金。在特朗普撤回诉讼后、法官正式结案前，93名民主党议员随即提交了法律意见书，正是基于这一论点。
另一个争议点是，如果向那些未对联邦政府提出未决或迫在眉睫索赔的人支付款项，该基金是否违反了管理“判决基金”的美国法律。
“真正的问题在于，国会在管控此类拨款方面异常宽松，”美利坚大学荣誉法学教授保罗·菲格利说道，“这是错误的，但并不违法。”
还有一个问题是，特朗普的税务豁免条款是否违反了一项保护纳税人审计不受政治干预的美国法律。
前国税局局长韦费尔补充道，未来的政府往往会撤销前任政府的非立法性行动。
一些专家表示，国会参众两院中的任何一院或两院——而非个别议员——可以对该基金提出质疑。但考虑到目前参众两院均由共和党控制，这种可能性不大。
“民众对这项协议的愤怒是合理且日益高涨的，这将让许多受其伤害的人站出来，”民主派法律倡导组织“民主捍卫者行动”的联合创始人诺曼·艾森说道，该组织代表参与国税局案件的93名议员。
Trump’s $1.776 billion ‘weaponization’ fund sparks outrage, but court challenges will be tough
2026-05-20T21:58:06.786Z / Reuters
May 20 (Reuters) – Opponents of President Donald Trump’s sweeping legal settlement with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service will face high hurdles in challenging its $1.776 billion fund for victims of alleged political “weaponization” and its provision barring audits of his taxes, according to legal experts.
Congressional Democrats derided the so-called Anti-Weaponization Fund as a slush fund to steer taxpayer dollars to Trump’s political allies, while watchdog groups called the tax immunity agreement illegal. Even some Republicans expressed qualms. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, for instance, said he was “not a big fan” of the plan.
Two police officers who defended the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, against a failed bid by Trump supporters to stop Congress from certifying Democrat Joe Biden’s 2020 election victory, have already sued. The officers allege that the fund will reward and empower rioters who have harassed them and made death threats.
Legal experts said it is unclear whether challengers will be able to block payouts or undo Trump’s shield against audits of past taxes if Congress, controlled by Trump’s fellow Republicans, stays silent.
‘NO LONGER A VENUE’
In part, that is because Trump dismissed his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS before the settlement was announced, preventing the judge in that case from doing anything.
“There’s no longer a venue to challenge the legality of this settlement,” said Danny Werfel, who served as IRS commissioner during the Biden administration.
The Justice Department announced the fund on Monday, shortly after Trump voluntarily withdrew his lawsuit accusing the IRS of wrongdoing in media leaks of his tax returns during his first term as president.
Trump also dropped claims over the government’s investigations of contacts between his 2016 presidential campaign and Russians, and the FBI’s 2022 search of his Mar-a-Lago home in Florida for classified documents he retained after his first term ended. Trump will also get an apology under the plan.
On Tuesday, the Justice Department quietly released an addendum signed that day by acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche, which “FOREVER BARRED and PRECLUDED” the government from prosecuting or pursuing pending tax claims against Trump, his family and his businesses. Blanche is a former personal lawyer for Trump.
‘WEAPONIZATION OR LAWFARE’
The $1.776 billion fund, an apparent nod to the year of the country’s founding, will be controlled by Trump allies.
It will be used to compensate people who claim to have been damaged by U.S. government “weaponization or lawfare.” Trump has accused the Biden administration and other political opponents of improperly using law enforcement, intelligence and regulatory agencies to target him and his allies.
The fund will be financed from the Judgment Fund, which Congress established in 1956 to pay legal claims made against the government.
Blanche told U.S. senators on Tuesday there was precedent for the creation of the anti-weaponization fund. He cited a $680 million fund created in 2010 for Native American farmers during Democratic President Barack Obama’s administration to resolve years-long litigation known as the Keepseagle case.
While that settlement was deemed fair, reasonable and adequate by a federal judge, Blanche said the IRS settlement will not undergo court review. Blanche also said January 6 defendants, who already have received clemency from Trump, could get payments.
LEGAL STANDING
Legal experts said opponents of the $1.776 billion fund will have a difficult time establishing a legal right to sue, known as standing, because it may be tough to demonstrate they have been harmed in some way.
The two police officers who sued in federal court in Washington claimed they faced injury because the fund would encourage January 6 defendants to keep threatening them and potentially commit violence.
“The increased risk of threats, harassment and violence our plaintiffs are suffering as a result confers standing,” said Public Integrity Project CEO Brendan Ballou, who filed the lawsuit.
THE HUNTER BIDEN QUESTION
Some experts said the best chance to challenge the fund may come later, when claimants – even Trump opponents – might allege they were harmed because their payouts were too low.
Josh Gardner, a lawyer who led the Justice Department’s handling of the Keepseagle case, pointed to Hunter Biden, the former president’s son.
Hunter Biden was convicted of tax and gun crimes during his father’s presidency in a case pursued by a Trump-appointed federal prosecutor who later was elevated to the position of special counsel. President Biden pardoned his son seven weeks before Trump returned to office.
“If Hunter Biden were to submit a claim and his claim were rejected, he would have standing to challenge not just his denial, but I think the entire structure of this settlement,” Gardner said.
‘REMARKABLY LOOSE’
If litigants establish standing, they could argue that the IRS settlement violates several laws, according to legal experts.
One issue is whether the fund violates the U.S. Constitution’s Appropriations Clause, which gives Congress power of the purse, because U.S. lawmakers did not authorize it. Ninety-three Democratic lawmakers filed a legal brief making that very point shortly after Trump dismissed his lawsuit but before the judge formally closed the case.
Another issue is whether the fund may violate a U.S. law governing the Judgment Fund if payments are made to people with no pending or imminent claims against the federal government.
“The real problem is, Congress has been remarkably loose in controlling these kinds of payments,” said Paul Figley, an emeritus law professor at American University. “It’s wrong, but not illegal.”
There also is the question of whether Trump’s tax immunity provision violates a U.S. law that protects against political interference in taxpayer audits.
Werfel, the former IRS commissioner, added that future administrations often unwind non-legislative actions of prior administrations.
Some experts said one or both chambers of Congress, though not individual lawmakers, could challenge the fund. That is unlikely for now, with Republicans controlling the House of Representatives and Senate.
“There’s a ferment of outrage that is justifiable against this deal, and that will bring off the sidelines many people who are hurt by it,” said Norm Eisen, co-founder of Democracy Defenders Action, a Democratic-leaning legal advocacy group representing the 93 lawmakers in the IRS case.
发表回复