标签： North America

Leading Democratic lawmakers on two key U.S. House of Representatives committees have launched a new push to force senior leaders from the Department of Justice and Treasury Department to explain the controversial settlement of President Donald Trump’s $10 billion civil suit against the Internal Revenue Service, a deal Democrats deride as an orchestrated “sham” designed for political self-dealing.

In a formal letter sent Wednesday to acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and IRS CEO Frank Bisignano, the top Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee and Ways and Means Committee—Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Richard Neal of Massachusetts, respectively—leveled harsh condemnation against the agreement, calling it “one of the most brazen acts of public corruption and self-dealing in American history.”

The lawmakers argue that the current leadership at the DOJ and IRS chose to capitulate rather than protect public funds from what they call a clear grab for private political gain. Central to their criticism is the establishment of a $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” created as part of the settlement, which Raskin and Neal label a taxpayer shakedown meant to direct public money to the president’s political allies—including the pro-Trump rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.

The pair added that the massive, unaccountable fund will be overseen by a handpicked commission made up entirely of Trump’s political cronies, and the terms of the original settlement block both Congress and the general public from ever learning which individuals receive payments from the pool of public money. According to prior reporting from CNN, the first known claim to the fund was already filed this week by Michael Caputo, a long-time Trump advisor and former White House official. Caputo describes his family as “survivors of the illegal Russiagate investigations” and is seeking $2.7 million in compensation from the fund.

House Democrats emphasized that the U.S. Constitution grants Congress alone the power of the purse through its appropriations clause, and congressional leaders never approved or allocated taxpayer funds for the $1.776 billion political fund. “This settlement is a transparent attempt to circumvent the separation of powers and use the judgment fund for a scam Congress never contemplated: rewarding the president’s political allies at the expense of American taxpayers,” the letter reads.

Beyond the creation of the controversial fund, the settlement permanently bars the IRS from pursuing any further legal or administrative action against Trump and his immediate family members. Lawmakers say the deal effectively grants a sweeping, unofficial “super-pardon” to the president, his family, and all connected business entities. This immunity releases them from any potential accountability for unpaid taxes, as well as from other ongoing federal civil and criminal probes into allegations including insider trading, antitrust violations, false statements, and sexual harassment.

Raskin and Neal have ordered the federal agencies to preserve all records tied to the settlement and fund creation, including both physical documents and electronically stored information—covering communications sent via private emails, text messages, encrypted apps like Signal, and all other non-official communication channels. They have also given agency leaders a deadline of next week to turn over the IRS internal memorandum on the settlement, all related supporting records, and formal responses to a list of probing questions. The deadline comes ahead of Bessent’s scheduled public appearance before the Ways and Means Committee.

The controversy has already drawn scrutiny on Capitol Hill from both chambers. Blanche appeared before the Senate on Tuesday to testify on the DOJ’s annual budget request, where he faced a wave of questions from Democratic lawmakers pushing back on the deal. He attempted to push back against the framing put forward by Senate Appropriations Committee Vice Chair Patty Murray of Washington, who has argued the fund amounts to Trump using tax dollars to enrich his own political circle. Democratic Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware questioned Blanche about requirements for public disclosure of payouts and safeguards to prevent Trump family members from accessing the fund, while Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland raised questions about whether January 6 rioters—including those who attacked Capitol police and even those convicted of child sex crimes—would qualify for payments.

Hours after the House Democrats released their letter on Wednesday morning, two Capitol Police officers who defended the building during the 2021 attack filed a separate federal lawsuit seeking to dissolve the fund entirely. Their legal argument argues that no federal statute authorizes the fund’s creation, the underlying settlement is a corrupt sham, and the fund’s design violates both the U.S. Constitution and federal law.

Separately, Raskin introduced new standalone legislation Wednesday, the No Taxpayer-Funded Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2026, designed to explicitly block Trump’s fund from operating. He also submitted a motion to issue formal subpoenas for Blanche, Bisignano, Bessent, and two other officials directly involved in the deal: Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward and Treasury Department General Counsel Brian Morrissey. Morrissey notably resigned from his post as the deal was publicly announced.

“Mr. Blanche orchestrated this outrageous slush fund as part of the settlement with Donald Trump, which was also signed by Mr. Woodward, and Mr. Bessent will oversee the payout of these funds,” Raskin said in a public statement. “Mr. Bisignano signed off on this settlement for the IRS, and Brian Morrissey remarkably resigned as this deal was being announced. These individuals all possess critical insights into Trump’s self-dealing scheme with his own agencies to create this fund and reward his supporters and friends.”

The Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee voted to reject the proposed subpoenas along a strict party-line vote, ending the immediate push for congressional testimony from the involved officials.

The long-strained relationship between the United States and Cuba has entered a new, highly unpredictable phase after US authorities brought murder charges against 94-year-old former Cuban president Raúl Castro. This unprecedented legal action has ignited widespread global speculation that the Caribbean island could be the next target of Washington’s regime change agenda, coming on the heels of a years-long US maximum pressure campaign that has pushed Cuba into its worst fuel and energy crisis in decades. For 66 years, Cuba has been governed by a Communist system, and a growing bloc of US officials have publicly pushed for that government to be removed from power.

While sitting US President Donald Trump has stated publicly that he does not believe any military escalation will be needed to achieve US goals, the White House has simultaneously doubled down on its vow to not tolerate what it labels a “rogue state” located just 90 miles (144 kilometers) off the US coast. Analysts and policymakers are now examining three distinct scenarios that could unfold as tensions escalate.

The first, and most immediately dramatic pathway, is a US military operation to capture Castro to stand trial in an American courtroom. The charges against Castro stem from the 1996 downing of two civilian aircraft by Cuban fighter jets, and the indictment has stoked fears of a repeat of previous US capture missions. This kind of operation is not without precedent: earlier this year, US special operations forces carried out a rapid raid in Venezuela to capture then-President Nicolás Maduro, a long-time close ally of Cuba, to face US drug and weapons charges in New York. Going back further, the 1989 Operation Just Cause saw 20,000 US troops invade Panama to overthrow and detain then-leader Manuel Noriega.

While Trump has declined to confirm or deny whether a similar mission is being planned for Cuba, a number of sitting US lawmakers have openly called for exactly that approach. “We shouldn’t take anything off the table,” Florida Senator Rick Scott told reporters, adding that “the same thing that happened to Maduro should happen to Raúl Castro.”

Regional security experts note that from a purely military perspective, a capture mission is logistically feasible, but it carries significant risks and unforeseen complications. One key factor is Castro’s advanced age, and analysts also anticipate fierce resistance from Cuban security forces. Adam Isacson, a regional specialist at the Washington Office on Latin America, a non-governmental organization, explained that while Castro’s age might simplify extraction, his iconic status means he is under extremely heavy security protection. “It’s certainly possible,” Isacson noted, but added that removing Castro would likely do little to shift Cuba’s existing power structure. Castro stepped down from the presidency in 2018, and has since functioned primarily as an influential symbolic figurehead rather than holding direct day-to-day governing power. “He’s 94. I don’t think it would affect the power structure in Cuba very much anymore,” Isacson said. “The Castro dynasty retains influence, but it is no longer central to the system the revolution built.” Still, he acknowledged that a capture would carry major domestic political benefits for the Trump administration, which has long courted the anti-Castro Cuban exile community in Florida. “They’d love to humiliate the Castros and lock up one of the original 1959 revolutionaries,” Isacson said. “But the strategic value of that move is really questionable.”

The second scenario being pushed by senior Trump administration officials is a negotiated transition to a new, US-aligned leadership structure that leaves most of Cuba’s existing governing institutions intact. This approach, experts point out, would mirror the recent transition in Venezuela that saw Nicolás Maduro replaced by Delcy Rodriguez, who has since governed the country while working directly with the Trump administration. Trump has repeatedly stated that his administration is already in contact with dissident figures inside Cuba who are seeking US support amid the island’s deepening economic crisis. “Cuba is asking for help, and we are going to talk,” Trump wrote on his social platform Truth Social on May 12.

Just days after that post, CIA Director John Ratcliffe held a closed-door meeting with multiple senior Cuban officials, including Castro’s grandson Raúl Guillermo Rodríguez Castro and Interior Minister Lázaro Álvarez Casas. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters during a Florida appearance that “We’ll engage with the Cubans… at the end of the day they need to make a decision. Their system just doesn’t work.” Rubio added that the administration’s top preference is reaching “a negotiated agreement” that would leave core government structures in place. The changes Washington is demanding include commitments to liberalize Cuba’s state-controlled economy, open the country to increased foreign investment, grant greater political power to US-based Cuban exile groups, and expel all Russian and Chinese intelligence operations from the island.

Georgetown University Latin American studies professor Michael Shifter, former president of the Washington-based think tank Inter-American Dialogue, explained that this approach aligns with US strategic goals: “Just like they wanted to avoid instability in Venezuela, they want to avoid instability in Cuba. Forcing a full regime collapse would be too risky for that.” The biggest challenge to this plan, multiple experts note, is that there is no clear, pre-vetted alternative leader waiting in the wings inside Cuba, unlike the situation in Venezuela. “I don’t think there’s an obvious Delcy Rodriguez in Cuba, and power works differently in Cuba than it does in Venezuela,” Shifter said. “It’s hard for them to find the kind of figure they’re looking for, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t actively searching for a cooperative governing structure.”

The third and most passive scenario is that Cuba’s government will eventually collapse entirely under the weight of ongoing US economic pressure, which has already left most Cuban residents coping with hours-long daily blackouts and widespread shortages of basic food and consumer goods. President Trump has argued that this outcome is already well underway, saying “There will be no escalation. I don’t think it’s necessary. The place is falling apart. It’s a disaster, and they have lost control to some extent.”

But experts warn that this narrative overlooks key strengths of the Cuban state, noting that even amid a catastrophic economic downturn, government and security institutions still maintain firm control over daily life across the island. “You have to distinguish between the Cuban economy and the Cuban state and government,” Shifter explained. “The Cuban economy can collapse, and is collapsing… but the state still functions, especially on the security side.”

A full state collapse would also create major new problems for the Trump administration, as it would likely trigger a massive wave of Cuban migration, primarily toward the US southern border. The Trump administration has already imposed harsh new immigration restrictions that have blocked most recent Cuban arrivals from accessing political asylum and other legal pathways to resettlement. “If there’s a collapse, you’re going to see a big portion of the Cuban population do everything they can to get away, the same way they have from Haiti over the years,” Isacson said. He added that while Florida would be the primary destination for most migrants, many would also likely travel through Mexico to reach the US. Isacson noted that he has been surprised a mass exodus has not already begun, given the extreme conditions many Cubans are facing: “People are probably subsisting on 1,000 or 1,500 calories a day, and are not able to get basic healthcare. You’d think that people would already be building their boats.”

For the hundreds of thousands of Cuban exiles living in the US, many of whom have spent decades advocating for the overthrow of the Havana government, the current moment brings long-awaited hopes that their goal may finally be within reach. But for Cuban residents on the island, the uncertainty of what comes next brings new hardship and anxiety after decades of economic isolation and political tension.

In an unprecedented legal move that has sent shockwaves through Washington, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a last-minute settlement this week of a historic lawsuit brought by former President Donald Trump over the leak of his personal and business tax returns — a settlement that permanently bars the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) from reviewing any past tax filings submitted by Trump, his immediate family, and their affiliated business entities before May 19, 2026.

The settlement marks the first time a sitting or former U.S. president has ever sued the federal government, and its unprecedented terms have triggered fierce condemnation from lawmakers, legal scholars, and government watchdog groups, who argue the deal violates core federal tax law and amounts to a brazen act of self-dealing that places Trump above the law.

The case dates back to January 2026, when Trump and his two eldest sons launched a $10 billion legal action against the IRS over the unauthorized disclosure of their private tax documents. On Monday this week, DOJ announced the suit had been resolved. As part of the deal, the agency agreed to establish a nearly $1.8 billion public fund, labeled the “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” to compensate individuals who claim they were unfairly targeted by political investigations. A day after the public settlement announcement, DOJ quietly released a one-page addendum that halts all pending IRS audits of Trump, his family, their trusts, corporate holdings, and subsidiary companies. The document explicitly states the U.S. government is “FOREVER BARRED AND PRECLUDED” from carrying out routine tax enforcement actions, including examinations of filings, claims for unpaid taxes, and legal recourse against underpayment for all tax documents submitted by the Trump party before the May 19, 2026 cutoff. DOJ has clarified that the ban applies only to existing audits, not future tax reviews.

Federal law does not publicly disclose ongoing IRS investigations, so it remains unclear what specific reviews of Trump and his business empire the agency may have had underway when the settlement was reached. DOJ has defended the unusual addendum, framing it as a standard clause used to bring full closure to settled legal disputes. “There would be little point in settling several significant claims if either party could simply turn around and seek to initiate more adverse claims that could have been pursued previously,” a DOJ spokesperson said in an official statement.

But critics across legal and political circles have pushed back hard against that framing, warning the deal undermines long-standing safeguards to protect the integrity of the U.S. tax system. Ron Wyden, the top Democratic member of the Senate Finance Committee, called the settlement “clearly a violation of the law that prohibits interference by executive branch officials in IRS audits.” Wyden added, “Democrats are going to fight every element of this self-dealing settlement, but regardless of the outcome of those efforts, future administrations and IRS leadership should consider this illegal directive completely invalid.”

U.S. law bars the president, vice president, and most high-ranking executive branch officials from directly or indirectly requesting the termination of an IRS audit, though the attorney general holds a narrow exception to this rule. The addendum was signed by current Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, leading supporters of the deal to argue it technically adheres to statutory requirements. But critics argue the structure of the settlement is an end-run around the law, noting Trump himself indirectly orchestrated the end of potential investigations through the lawsuit. “Trump filed a bad-faith lawsuit and, with the settlement, aims to escape from IRS audits,” said Robert Weissman and Lisa Gilbert, co-presidents of government watchdog group Public Citizen, in a joint statement.

Tax experts also point to multiple other departures from standard legal and tax procedure. The IRS typically closes outstanding tax cases either through a negotiated agreement with the taxpayer or via referral to DOJ, and there is no public record the IRS took either step in this case. Unlike routine tax settlements, the broad blanket ban on audits was attached to a personal lawsuit against the IRS, not a formal tax dispute, and was approved without any input from IRS leadership. “It purports to put the President, his entities, and his family above the tax laws—even though DOJ alone doesn’t have authority to offer those extraordinary protections,” said Brandon DeBot, Policy Director at the nonpartisan Tax Law Center. DeBot called the entire deal “a breathtaking abuse of the tax and legal system.”

The $1.776 billion compensation fund included in the settlement has sparked its own controversy, with critics across the political spectrum condemning it as an unauthorized “slush fund” that could be used to distribute money to Trump’s political allies, including rioters convicted for their role in the January 6, 2021, breach of the U.S. Capitol. Even Senate Majority Leader John Thune, one of the top Republican leaders in Congress, has publicly expressed skepticism about the fund’s legality and purpose. Already, the first claim has been filed by Michael R. Caputo, a former adviser to Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and a former official in Trump’s first term, who is seeking $2.7 million in compensation over investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 election. In a statement, Caputo said he was “profoundly grateful” that Trump “will not let this political weaponization stand.”

Legal challenges to the settlement and the fund are already mounting. Two Capitol Police officers who were on duty during the January 6, 2021, riot filed a federal lawsuit on Wednesday arguing the fund is illegal on multiple grounds: no federal statute authorizes its creation, the underlying settlement is a “corrupt sham,” and its structure violates both the U.S. Constitution and federal law. The officers also warn the fund threatens their personal safety by providing financial compensation to convicted rioters who have repeatedly issued death threats against them, and could open the door to funding for violent paramilitary groups.

A retired law enforcement officer from Tennessee who spent more than five weeks in jail following his arrest over a social media post connected to the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk has reached an $835,000 settlement in his wrongful incarceration lawsuit against local authorities. Larry Bushart, 64, spent 37 days in pre-trial detention before prosecutors ultimately dropped all felony charges against him — a period of incarceration that cost him his part-time post-retirement job and forced him to miss the birth of his first grandchild.

Bushart’s arrest dates back to September 2024, when deputies from the Perry County Sheriff’s Office took him into custody hours after he shared a satirical meme in a public Facebook discussion thread about a community vigil honoring Kirk, who was fatally shot during an outdoor speaking engagement in Utah 10 days prior. The meme paired the partial line “We have to get over it” — a quote taken from former President Donald Trump’s 2024 message of condolence following a deadly school shooting in Perry, Iowa — with the caption “Seems relevant today.”

Local authorities claimed that area residents grew alarmed by the post because Tennessee’s Perry County is home to a public school that shares the same name as the Iowa school where the 2024 shooting occurred. Then-sheriff Nick Weems argued publicly after the arrest that investigators believed Bushart had intentionally posted the meme to stoke widespread fear and hysteria within the local community, charging him with threatening mass violence at a school. Unable to pay the exorbitant $2 million bail set by the court, Bushart remained behind bars for more than a month even as he maintained his post was protected free speech and never intended to incite harm.

After all charges were dismissed, Bushart filed a federal civil lawsuit against Perry County, Weems, and lead county investigator Jason Morrow, alleging the defendants had violated his First Amendment right to free expression and his Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search, seizure, and unlawful detention. A jury trial was scheduled to begin in Memphis this coming July, before the two sides reached a settlement agreement that was announced publicly this week.

In a formal statement announcing the resolution of his case, Bushart said he was pleased that his First Amendment rights had ultimately been vindicated. “The people’s freedom to participate in civil discourse is crucial to a healthy democracy,” the statement read. “I am looking forward to moving on and spending time with my family.” The BBC has reached out to Perry County officials for additional comment on the settlement, but has not yet received a response.

Bushart is one of more than 30 Americans who faced some form of professional or public repercussion — ranging from widespread online harassment to termination from employment — for controversial social media comments made in the wake of Kirk’s killing. To date, he remains the only individual known to have been incarcerated for a social media post related to the high-profile killing, a fact that has drawn increased national attention to his case and broader debates over the balance between public safety and free speech rights in the digital age.