Trump’s New Grift Is His Most Brazen … Ever?

The Slate article frames a potential settlement in President Trump’s IRS lawsuit as an overt attempt to extract taxpayer funds for political allies, relying on charged language and narrow sourcing to build that impression.

Key Findings

• Loaded terminology shapes the narrative. The headline calls the deal “Trump’s New Grift” and the body repeatedly uses “slush fund,” “raiding the Treasury,” and “straight-up paying Trump.” These choices present the negotiation as self-evident corruption rather than a contested legal resolution.
• Selective emphasis on beneficiaries. The piece describes the proposed $1.7 billion fund almost exclusively as a vehicle for “Trump’s closest allies” and “personal gain.” It does not mention the reported inclusion of claimants alleging harm from prior Justice Department actions, including January 6 defendants.
• Limited procedural context. The article notes the lawsuit’s origins in leaked tax returns but spends little space on the fact that the disclosure itself was illegal and resulted in a criminal conviction. This omission leaves the settlement appearing unmoored from any underlying legal injury.

“The administration is mulling a plan for a massive taxpayer-funded slush fund for Trump’s closest allies.”

The quoted passage illustrates how the piece collapses a complex settlement discussion into a single interpretive conclusion.

What Was Missing

The article does not report that the individual who leaked Trump’s tax returns was convicted in federal court for the disclosure. Court records confirm the conviction occurred after the 2019–2023 investigation. Including this fact would have supplied a concrete legal predicate for the lawsuit and the ensuing settlement talks.

Author and Outlet Context

Jim Newell has covered Congress and national politics for Slate since 2007. His work consistently applies a progressive interpretive lens to Republican administrations, with limited inclusion of countervailing legal or policy arguments. Slate’s audience incentives reward this framing.

Comparative Coverage

• ABC News reported the same potential deal as a compensation mechanism for both political allies and January 6 defendants, citing unnamed sources and Trump legal team statements.
• CNN focused on procedural questions before the court and the timeline for any settlement, avoiding corruption language.
• The Rachel Maddow Show echoed Slate’s “slush fund” framing while adding Democratic congressional criticism.
• The Tax Law Center analyzed whether the settlement would violate 26 U.S.C. § 7217, emphasizing statutory limits rather than political motives.

Bottom Line

The Slate piece functions as interpretive analysis rather than straight reporting. It succeeds at highlighting political risks of the proposed settlement but weakens its credibility by treating contested characterizations as settled fact and by omitting the documented criminal conduct that gave rise to the original lawsuit. Readers seeking a fuller picture should cross-reference the procedural and legal-focused accounts listed below.

Further Reading

• ABC News: Trump Poised to Drop IRS Suit, Launch $1.7B Weaponization Commission
• CNN: Justice Department Considers Settling Trump IRS Leak Lawsuit
• Tax Law Center: Statement on Trump Lawsuit and Potential Settlement