Imposes gross income tax at rate of 100 percent on amounts received by resident taxpayers from Anti-Weaponization Fund.
This bill would amend New Jersey gross income tax law to impose a 100 percent tax on any money a New Jersey resident receives from the federal “Anti-Weaponization Fund.” The bill defines that fund by reference to a federal settlement agreement in Donald J. Trump v. Internal Revenue Service and makes clear that all such receipts would be treated as taxable income for New Jersey purposes.
The bill also bars any deductions, exemptions, exclusions, or tax credits from reducing the tax owed on these amounts. It directs the Division of Taxation to administer, collect, and enforce the tax under the existing New Jersey Gross Income Tax Act, and it would apply retroactively to taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2026, taking effect immediately upon enactment.
If enacted, the bill would create a new category of fully taxed income under Title 54A for New Jersey resident taxpayers who receive payments from the Anti-Weaponization Fund. In practical terms, recipients would owe the state an amount equal to the full value of any such payment, leaving them with no net after-tax benefit from the fund proceeds. The measure would also expand the Division of Taxation’s enforcement role to cover these receipts under the ordinary gross income tax administration framework.
The bill text and statement reflect a strongly critical posture toward the Anti-Weaponization Fund and the federal settlement that created it, describing the fund as potentially benefiting political allies and recipients of January 6-related prosecutions. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no formal legislative debate or voting record to gauge broader support or opposition. Based on the bill’s framing, the measure appears intended as a punitive or symbolic response rather than a routine tax adjustment.
The main point of contention is the bill’s targeted treatment of a politically charged federal settlement fund and the assumption that recipients should not retain any of the proceeds. Supporters would likely view the tax as an assertion of state taxing authority and a response to what the statement characterizes as misuse of federal funds. Opponents would likely argue that a 100 percent tax is effectively confiscatory, singles out a specific group or federal benefit for adverse treatment, and may raise fairness or policy concerns about retroactive application and politically motivated taxation.