By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The article details significant job losses across various sectors, with ending contracts, market conditions, restructuring, and closures accounting for the vast majority of layoffs. While artificial intelligence contributed to some job cuts, tariffs played a minimal role. This surge in job losses was not offset by job creation, which reached its weakest point in three months, primarily driven by healthcare gains and following the slowest annual growth in two decades. The rise in unemployment claims further indicates a struggling labor market, contradicting claims of economic prosperity.
Read the original article here
Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen’s recent statements have confirmed a startling reality: American taxpayers are indeed on the hook for former President Donald Trump’s colossal $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS. This revelation has sparked considerable outrage and disbelief, particularly among those who supported Trump with the expectation that he would prioritize their financial well-being. The notion that the very government meant to serve its citizens could be compelled to fund legal battles initiated by a former president, especially against its own agencies, is a difficult pill to swallow.
The core of the issue lies in how such lawsuits are handled within the federal system. When a president, or former president, initiates legal action against a government department, the Department of Justice (DOJ) is typically tasked with defending the agency. This means that taxpayer money, which funds the DOJ, is inherently being used to fight against a legal challenge brought forth by a former commander-in-chief. The sheer scale of this $10 billion lawsuit magnifies this concern, raising questions about the fairness and practicality of a system where public funds are used to settle claims of such magnitude, potentially benefiting an individual rather than the broader populace.
Adding another layer of concern is the potential for an out-of-court settlement. The argument is that a future administration, particularly one influenced by the political dynamics surrounding a former president, might instruct the DOJ to settle the case to avoid protracted legal battles or further political fallout. This scenario effectively transforms the U.S. Treasury into a personal ATM for the former president, where the “settlement” would ultimately be paid by the American people. This transactional relationship, where citizens are expected to bear the financial burden of a former president’s legal entanglements, is perceived by many as a profound betrayal of public trust.
The constitutional implications of this situation are also being widely discussed. Article II of the Constitution outlines that a president’s compensation should remain constant during their term and that they should not receive any other emoluments from the United States. While this lawsuit isn’t directly related to current presidential compensation, it taps into the broader concern about public funds being directed towards personal enrichment or legal defense rather than public service. The argument that Trump foregoes his presidential salary is often met with the rejoinder that such sacrifices pale in comparison to the potential billions being sought, suggesting a fundamental imbalance in priorities.
The concept of “official acts” immunity for presidents is also being brought into sharp focus. While intended to allow presidents to make decisions without the constant threat of litigation, its application in this context is being scrutinized. Critics question whether suing the IRS for actions that may have occurred during his presidency, and potentially seeking vast sums of money, falls within the spirit of this immunity, especially when the financial burden falls upon the citizenry. There’s a growing sentiment that while in office, a president should perhaps be precluded from suing the very government they lead, particularly when taxpayer dollars are involved on both sides of the legal aisle.
The perception of this situation as a “scam” or a “grift” is widespread. The strategy, as some observers articulate it, involves a systematic approach: sue a department, have the DOJ defend it with taxpayer money, and then settle out of court for a substantial sum. This cycle, they argue, is perpetuated by a dedicated base of supporters who are seemingly unfazed by the financial implications for the nation. The sheer audacity of seeking such an immense amount, particularly from a position of former power, strikes many as an exploitation of the system.
The implications for future presidential conduct are also a significant concern. If a former president can successfully sue the government for billions and have taxpayers foot the bill, it sets a precedent that could encourage similar actions by future leaders. This raises the alarming possibility of a continuous drain on public resources, where presidents could leverage their past positions to extract significant financial gains, leaving future generations to bear the cost. The idea that this could even be seen as a “smart business move” by some, albeit a cynical one, highlights the perceived shift from public service to personal financial gain.
Ultimately, the core message emerging from the public discourse is one of profound disappointment and anger. Many believed that electing Trump would lead to economic prosperity for the average American. Instead, they are faced with the stark reality that they are now potentially liable for a $10 billion lawsuit, a sum that dwarfs many individual fortunes and represents a significant portion of the national budget. This situation is not just about a lawsuit; it’s about the perceived integrity of the government, the equitable use of public funds, and the fundamental trust between citizens and their leaders. The Treasury Secretary’s admission has, for many, solidified the unsettling conclusion that the American people are indeed carrying the financial weight of this unprecedented legal challenge.