HB 8910, the “SLUSH FUND Act of 2026,” would amend the Internal Revenue Code to impose a 100 percent tax on certain payments made from settlement funds tied to civil actions filed against the United States or its agencies by a “specified person.” The bill defines a specified person to include former Presidents, their family members, and entities controlled by them. In practical terms, any amount received from a qualifying settlement fund would be fully taxed, and the bill also excludes those payments from gross income for income tax purposes while creating a separate tax regime for them.
The bill also adds reporting and enforcement requirements. Trustees, administrators, or other fiduciaries making these payments would have to file information returns identifying the recipient and amount paid, provide written statements to recipients, and the IRS would be required to make the returns publicly available within one month. A new penalty would apply for willful failure to pay the tax or evade it, and a separate $10,000 penalty would apply for failure to file the required return. The provisions generally apply to amounts received or paid on or after May 20, 2026.
If enacted, the bill would create a new chapter in the Internal Revenue Code targeting settlement-related payments arising from lawsuits brought against the federal government by former Presidents, their families, or controlled entities. It would effectively confiscate the full amount of covered settlement fund payments through a 100 percent tax, while also imposing disclosure obligations on fiduciaries and public release of the reporting information. The measure would affect taxpayers receiving such payments, the fiduciaries administering settlement funds, and the IRS’s administration and enforcement of these transactions.
The available context suggests the bill is primarily punitive and highly targeted, as reflected in its title and structure. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of broader debate or bipartisan support in the record here. The bill’s introduction by multiple Democratic members indicates sponsorship support among its backers, but the absence of hearings or votes means overall legislative sentiment cannot be measured beyond the bill’s clear adversarial framing toward the covered settlement payments.
The main point of contention is the bill’s narrow targeting of former Presidents, their family members, and controlled entities, which raises questions about whether it is a policy response to a specific dispute rather than a generally applicable tax rule. Another likely issue is the 100 percent tax rate, which is unusually severe and could be viewed as confiscatory. The public disclosure requirement for settlement-fund returns may also be controversial because it would expose recipient information and settlement amounts, potentially implicating privacy and due-process concerns. No opposing statements or recorded objections are included in the provided materials, so these concerns are inferred from the bill’s design rather than documented debate.