President Donald Trump reportedly may drop his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS in a settlement handing him control of a $1.7 billion “MAGA slush fund” to compensate victims of government abuse, according to The New Republic‘s Greg Sargent, who calls it a “Shakedown.”

Citing an ABC News report, Sargent explains that the proposed settlement “would create a ‘commission’ with ‘total authority’ to settle ‘claims’ brought by those who allege such weaponization. Per ABC, this not only includes the insurrectionists; it could even settle purported claims by ‘entities associated with President Trump himself.’ By all indications it would operate with little-to-no congressional oversight.”

U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) told Sargent it is “a shocking new betrayal of the Constitution.”

This “new MAGA slush fund,” Sargent says, would come from an existing Justice Department fund that has strict controls, including transparency requirements. But “Trump would wield quasi-direct control” over the $1.7 billion, including being able to fire commission members “without cause,” and “it wouldn’t be required to disclose its decision-making involving who gets awarded compensation.”

Raskin told Sargent, the “Judgment Fund exists to settle valid judgments against the United States government.”

Raskin said that Trump and his allies are “trying to take money from the Judgment Fund while eliminating any controls and oversight” and put it under Trump’s “direct unilateral control.”

Because Congress did not set up any fund like this it could be unconstitutional.

“Congress never would have passed a $1.7 billion slush fund for his friends—this is completely outside of our constitutional framework,” Raskin said. He called it “an outrageous desecration of congressional power of the purse.”

Raskin also noted that the Constitution’s 14th Amendment prohibits government from assuming any “obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States.”

So if Trump wants to use the $1.7 billion to compensate the January 6 rioters, he will be “using federal taxpayer dollars to compensate people who participated in insurrection,” according to Raskin.

Trump and his lawyers “are figuring out a way to refund the January 6 militia, presumably to get them ready for the next round of battle,” Raskin said.

“So at bottom,” Sargent concludes, “payments from this fund might ultimately serve as a form of coalition management: They’ll keep large swaths of his coalition persuaded that a win for Trump, no matter how illicit or ill-gotten, is a win for them. That his corruption isn’t just in his own interests, but in theirs, too. Because, after all, they’re getting a cut of the spoils.”

Image via Shutterstock

CNN analyst Harry Enten is stunned at how far President Donald Trump’s approval rating has fallen, especially among Latino voters.

“The bottom has completely fallen out when it comes to Donald Trump and Latino voters,” Enten said on Friday.

“What a different world,” he exclaimed. “Oy vey, if I’m the president of the United States, because just take a look here.”

Trump won a “record share” of Latino voters for a “Republican presidential nominee, 46 percent of the vote,” Enten said, “going all the way back since we had the advent of exit polls back in 1972.”

Trump’s job approval rating, in an average of CNN polls, is 28 percent — “an 18 point drop,” Enten explained.

Latino voters from 2024 “have abandoned him with the utmost, just, dislike of what he is doing so far — just 28 percent, a drop of 18 points.”

And with Latino men, Enten said, “Oh, my goodness gracious.”

Trump is at -41 points, a “movement of 51 points, a shift away from the president of the United States.”

“Again, the bottom has just completely fallen out, and, of course, when you look across that political map, there are so many races that will be involving a lot of Latino voters, and when you see numbers like this, I just go, ‘Uh oh,’ if I am a Republican running for Congress,” he said.

Enten also said that one of the reasons Trump had “record performance with Latinos back in 2024, was because the issue of the economy. They trusted Donald Trump by a three-point margin against Kamala Harris.”

But his net approval on the economy now? “Minus 46 points.”

“No wonder the bottom has fallen out with Latino voters and Latino men in particular,” he added.

The bottom has completely fallen out for Trump with Latino voters.

After winning a record share for a GOP nominee in 2024, just 28% of Latinos approve of Trump now.

The drop with Latino men is even more dramatic. He won em by 10 in 2024. His net approval now is -41 pts! pic.twitter.com/LKB3BBgE7a

— (((Harry Enten))) (@ForecasterEnten) May 15, 2026

Image via Reuters 

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito is refusing to recuse himself from a major climate case despite owning stock in several energy companies, although none in the two that are parties in the lawsuit the court will hear next term.

Citing his energy stock ownership, liberal groups have been calling for the conservative justice to recuse, and they have asked the Senate Judiciary Committee to investigate Alito’s involvement, NBC News reports. But the Supreme Court says Alito is not obligated to do so.

“Justice Alito does not have a financial interest in any party” involved in the case, a court spokesperson told NBC News in a statement. The court’s legal counsel advised that “his recusal is not required.”

ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy are fighting to have dismissed a lawsuit involving damages for climate harms, NBC News reports.

Justices are not required to recuse unless they have a direct conflict, such as specific stock ownership, a personal relationship, or a history with the case prior to their appointment to the Supreme Court.

In their letter, the liberal groups say that justices should recuse if their “impartiality might reasonably be questioned” by an “unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of all relevant circumstances.”

The liberal groups also say they have “deep concerns” about Alito’s “inconsistent history of recusals from cases from which he should be compelled to recuse under long-standing federal law.” They cite “his substantial holdings in individual oil and gas companies and other personal ties.”

They point to what they call Alito’s “irregular recusal practice in oil and gas industry-related cases,” saying that it is “undermining public confidence in the impartiality of the Court.”

NBC notes that “in 2023, Alito did recuse himself when the court turned away an appeal from the companies in the Colorado case.” That same day, “the court rejected appeals in similar cases involving other companies, including ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66. Alito also did not participate in those cases.”

But the court’s spokesperson said that Alito was “inadvertently recused” from the Colorado case.

Image via Reuters