Raskin labels proposed Trump-IRS settlement 'unconstitutional,' claims Congress never approved the funds

Rep. Jamie Raskin went on national television Sunday and declared a proposed settlement between the Trump administration and the IRS unconstitutional, arguing that the president created a "$1.7 billion political slush fund" at the Department of Justice without a single vote from Congress.

The Maryland Democrat made his case on ABC's "This Week," where host George Stephanopoulos pressed him on whether the settlement was illegal and whether courts would intervene to stop it. Raskin didn't hedge. He called it unconstitutional on "a number of grounds" and invoked the Fourteenth Amendment to bolster his argument.

It was a sweeping claim, and one that leaned heavily on constitutional language Raskin has wielded before against the administration. But the substance of what he actually said reveals more about the Democratic strategy of litigation-by-press-conference than about any genuine constitutional crisis.

What Raskin actually said

Stephanopoulos opened the exchange with a direct question, as reported by Breitbart:

"You've called this proposed settlement a fraud. Is it illegal? And are you confident the courts will block it?"

Raskin responded with a rapid-fire constitutional argument. He said only Congress holds the appropriations power, and Congress "never voted on creating this $1.7 billion political slush fund at the Department of Justice." He added flatly: "There's no way he could get that through Congress. So, this is just an invention on his part."

Then he went further. Raskin cited Section Four of the Fourteenth Amendment, which he said bars federal spending "for the purposes of paying for insurrection or rebellion." He tied that provision directly to the proposed settlement's reported structure, payments of roughly one million dollars to each of 1,600 individuals he described as "pardoned rioters and insurrectionists."

"To the extent that he wants to give a million dollars to each of 1,600 pardoned rioters and insurrectionists, we think that that's an unconstitutional use of money."

That framing is worth pausing on. Raskin is not merely arguing the settlement exceeds executive authority. He is characterizing the recipients, people already pardoned, as insurrectionists, and then arguing the Constitution prohibits compensating them. It is a legal theory that conveniently doubles as a political message.

The broader pattern Raskin alleges

Raskin didn't stop at the IRS settlement. He used the interview to paint a picture of a president who routinely circumvents Congress to create what Raskin called "political slush funds." He rattled off a list: something he called the "Board of Peace," profits from Venezuelan oil, and what he described as the "billion dollar ballroom."

On the ballroom, Raskin claimed the president "originally said he was raising hundreds of millions of dollars for the purposes of the ballroom" but now "wants a billion dollars directly from the taxpayers." He offered no documentation for any of these claims during the interview.

He also alleged the president has "an account in Qatar where that money is going," though he provided no evidence for that assertion either. Stephanopoulos did not press him on it.

Raskin wrapped his argument with a sweeping conclusion:

"All of this is outside of the Constitution. All of it is outside of congressional spending power. And so, it is illegal. It is unconstitutional."

That's a lot of constitutional conclusions delivered without a single court filing, legal brief, or judicial ruling to back them up. What Raskin offered was a political argument dressed in constitutional language, delivered on a friendly Sunday morning set.

The missing pieces

Several important details remain unclear from Raskin's appearance. He did not describe the specific terms of the proposed Trump-IRS settlement. He did not identify which court, if any, had been asked to review or block it. He did not explain how the Department of Justice came to hold the funds in question, or under what legal authority the settlement was structured.

Stephanopoulos asked whether Raskin was "confident the courts will block it," which implies legal action is either underway or anticipated, but neither man specified where things stand procedurally.

The broader legal battles surrounding the Trump administration have drawn significant attention in recent months, with courts weighing in on everything from civil fraud claims to executive authority disputes. Raskin's latest salvo fits neatly into that larger Democratic effort to challenge the administration through every available legal and media channel.

What it does not do is provide the public with enough factual detail to evaluate his claims independently.

Constitutional argument or political theater?

Raskin's invocation of the Fourteenth Amendment is telling. Section Four of that amendment was written in the aftermath of the Civil War to prevent the federal government from paying Confederate war debts. Applying it to pardoned January 6 defendants requires a significant interpretive leap, one that assumes the events of that day constituted an "insurrection or rebellion" within the meaning of a provision drafted in 1868.

That characterization remains hotly contested. The president pardoned the individuals in question, which itself is an exercise of explicit constitutional authority under Article II. Raskin's argument effectively asks courts to treat a presidential pardon as irrelevant to the constitutional status of the pardoned individuals, a novel theory, to put it mildly.

Democrats have spent years trying to make the "insurrection" label stick to January 6 participants through legal proceedings, congressional hearings, and media campaigns. Raskin was the lead impeachment manager for the second Trump impeachment trial. His use of the Fourteenth Amendment here is consistent with that long-running effort, but it is not the same thing as a winning legal argument.

The pattern of federal institutions being weaponized against Trump has been a recurring theme of his political career, from the FISA warrant abuses of 2016 through multiple impeachment efforts and state-level prosecutions. Each time, the constitutional arguments offered by his opponents have been presented with the same air of certainty Raskin displayed Sunday, and each time, the underlying legal theories have proven far more fragile than their proponents suggested.

The appropriations question

Raskin's strongest point, at least on paper, is the appropriations argument. The Constitution does vest spending power in Congress. If the administration structured a settlement that effectively creates new federal expenditures without congressional authorization, that raises legitimate separation-of-powers questions.

But settlement authority within the executive branch is not unusual. Federal agencies settle lawsuits and claims regularly, often drawing on existing appropriations or judgment funds. Whether this particular settlement exceeds that authority depends on details Raskin did not provide during his television appearance.

Without knowing the legal mechanism behind the proposed settlement, whether it draws on the Judgment Fund, existing DOJ appropriations, or some other source, it is impossible to evaluate Raskin's appropriations claim on the merits. He may be right. He may be wrong. What he certainly is, based on his Sunday appearance, is vague.

Meanwhile, the broader dynamic of Democrats facing their own legal scrutiny even as they press constitutional challenges against the administration adds an ironic backdrop to Raskin's performance. The party that has spent years demanding accountability from the executive branch has not always applied the same standard to its own members.

What comes next

Raskin's appearance was clearly designed to set the public narrative ahead of any court proceedings. Whether Democrats file suit to block the settlement, or whether they rely on sympathetic judges to intervene independently, remains to be seen.

The political calculus is straightforward. By framing the settlement as unconstitutional before any court has weighed in, Raskin and his allies can claim vindication if a judge agrees, and claim judicial corruption if one doesn't. It is a heads-I-win, tails-you-lose strategy that has become a Democratic specialty.

The broader tensions between Democratic political figures and the current administration show no sign of cooling. If anything, the settlement dispute is likely to become another front in the permanent legal war Democrats have waged against this presidency.

Stephanopoulos, for his part, asked the kind of question that practically invited the answer Raskin gave. "Are you confident the courts will block it?" is not a question designed to probe weaknesses in Raskin's argument. It is a question designed to let him declare victory in advance.

That is how Sunday morning television works. But constitutional law does not operate on the same schedule as a cable news hit.

Raskin can call anything he likes unconstitutional. The Constitution itself will have the final word, and it has a habit of disappointing politicians who try to use it as a press release.