Is The IRS Phase-Out Happening Now?
Former White House Insider says new U.S. model could replace income tax with tariffs and buried national wealth
BALTIMORE, May 26, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- It's one of the most ambitious financial shifts in U.S. history—and according to former White House and Pentagon Insider Jim Rickards, it's already in motion behind the scenes.
Rickards says Washington insiders are preparing for a future without the IRS. And instead of raising new taxes or printing money, the government would fund itself using tariffs on foreign imports.
Middle-Class Relief, Without Raising Taxes
The foundation of the plan calls for eliminating income taxes for Americans earning under $150,000, including taxes on wages, tips, small business income, and Social Security benefits.
In its place: tariff-based revenue on imported goods.
'Presidents' goal is very simple,' said Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. 'To abolish the Internal Revenue Service and let all the outsiders pay.'
But Rickards says we could also replace those taxes with strategic royalties generated from U.S. resource development.
Chevron Is Dead—And the Minerals Are in Play
Rickards believes the 2024 Supreme Court decision overturning the Chevron Doctrine was the true trigger point. For decades, this doctrine empowered federal agencies to block access to resource-rich U.S. lands—keeping the nation from tapping into its most valuable strategic assets.
That's no longer the case.
'These are hard assets, not abstract numbers,' Rickards explains. 'We're talking about copper, lithium, uranium, and rare earths—enough to fund a generation of American growth without taxing labor.'
A $150 Trillion Engine, Now Unlocked
According to Rickards, estimates show:
$3.1 trillion in Nome, Alaska
$7.35 trillion in Midland, Texas
$516 billion near California's Salton Sea
In a new research briefing titled The American Birthright, Rickards connects the Supreme Court ruling, the income tax exit plan, and how America could build a sovereign wealth model—similar to Norway's or Saudi Arabia's—on top of these untapped assets.
About Jim Rickards
Jim Rickards is a former advisor to the CIA, Pentagon, and U.S. Treasury, and has counseled presidents on financial warfare, systemic risk, and global economic restructuring. He now leads Strategic Intelligence, a monthly research advisory focused on financial defense and geopolitical forecasting.
Media Contact:Derek WarrenPublic Relations ManagerParadigm Press GroupEmail: dwarren@paradigmpressgroup.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court Grants Musk-Less DOGE Access to Social Security Data
Elon Musk may be persona non grata at the White House, but DOGE lives on. The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the Department of Government Efficiency should be allowed access to Social Security Administration data, lifting a previously issued injunction that blocked the department from doing so. While the court's majority did not provide a detailed explanation of their ruling, they did write, 'We conclude that, under the present circumstances, SSA may proceed to afford members of the SSA DOGE Team access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work.' The three liberal justices dissented, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioning the urgency of the application and expressing concerns about the potential privacy risks that would result from the ruling. She wrote, 'In essence, the 'urgency' underlying the government's stay application is the mere fact that it cannot be bothered to wait for the litigation process to play out before proceeding as it wishes.' The Trump administration had previously argued that DOGE employees needed access to SSA data in order to halt fraudulent payments, but a federal judge in Maryland ruled that DOGE being granted such access violated federal law and put millions of people's data at risk. Two unions—the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and the American Federation of Teachers—brought the lawsuit alongside the Alliance for Retired Americans. The groups argued that allowing DOGE broader access to individuals' personal data would violate the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. 'The agency is obligated by the Privacy Act and its own regulations, practices, and procedures to keep that information secure—and not to share it beyond the circle of those who truly need it," their lawyers wrote. The data DOGE employees now have access to includes Social Security numbers, medical records, and tax and banking information. In her dissent, Jackson argued that the Supreme Court had 'truly lost its moorings,' by allowing the move and bending its usual standards to accommodate the Trump administration, adding, 'The Court is… unfortunately, suggesting that what would be an extraordinary request for everyone else is nothing more than an ordinary day on the docket for this Administration.'
CBS News
36 minutes ago
- CBS News
Supreme Court halts lower court orders requiring DOGE to hand over information about work and personnel
Elon Musk on DOGE and his work in and out of government Elon Musk on DOGE and his work in and out of government Elon Musk on DOGE and his work in and out of government Washington — The Supreme Court on Friday halted lower court orders that required the White House's Department of Government Efficiency to turn over information to a government watchdog group as part of a lawsuit that tests whether President Trump's cost-cutting task force has to comply with federal public records law. The order from the high court clears DOGE for now from having to turn over records related to its work and personnel, and keeps Amy Gleason, identified as its acting administrator, from having to answer questions at a deposition. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. "The portions of the district court's April 15 discovery order that require the government to disclose the content of intra–executive branch USDS recommendations and whether those recommendations were followed are not appropriately tailored," the court said in its order. "Any inquiry into whether an entity is an agency for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act cannot turn on the entity's ability to persuade. Furthermore, separation of powers concerns counsel judicial deference and restraint in the context of discovery regarding internal executive branch communications." The Supreme Court sent the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for more proceedings. Chief Justice John Roberts temporarily paused the district court's order last month, which allowed the Supreme Court more time to consider the Trump administration's bid for emergency relief. A district judge had ordered DOGE to turn over documents to the group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, by June 3, and for Gleason's deposition to be completed by June 13. The underlying issue in the case involves whether DOGE is subject to the Freedom of Information Act. CREW argues that the cost-cutting task force wields "substantial independent authority," which makes it a de facto agency that must comply with federal public records law. The Justice Department, however, disagrees and instead claims that DOGE is a presidential advisory body housed within the Executive Office of the President that makes recommendations to the president and federal agencies on matters that are important to Mr. Trump's second-term agenda. DOGE's agency status was not before the Supreme Court, though the high court may be asked to settle that matter in the future. Instead, the Trump administration had asked the justices to temporarily halt a district court's order that allowed CREW to gather certain information from DOGE as part of its effort to determine whether the task force is an advisory panel that is outside FOIA's scope or is an agency that is subject to the records law. The judge overseeing the dispute, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, had ordered DOGE to turn over certain documents to the watchdog group by June 3 and to complete all depositions, including of Gleason, by June 13. Mr. Trump ordered the creation of DOGE on his first day back in the White House as part of his initiative to slash the size of the federal government. Since then, DOGE team members have fanned out to agencies across the executive branch and have been part of efforts to shrink the federal workforce and shutter entities like the U.S. Agency for International Development and the U.S. Institute of Peace. DOGE has also attempted to gain access to sensitive databases kept by the Internal Revenue Service, Social Security Administration and Office of Personnel Management, prompting legal battles. In an effort to learn more about DOGE's structure and operations, CREW submitted an expedited FOIA request to the task force. After it did not respond in a timely manner, CREW filed a lawsuit and sought a preliminary injunction to expedite processing of its records request. The organization argued that DOGE was exercising significant independent authority, which made it an agency subject to FOIA. Cooper granted CREW's request for a preliminary injunction in March and agreed that FOIA likely applies to DOGE because it is "likely exercising substantial independent authority much greater than other [Executive Office of the President] components held to be covered by FOIA." He then allowed CREW to conduct limited information-gathering, which the watchdog group said aimed to determine whether DOGE is exercising substantial authority that would bring it within FOIA's reach. A federal appeals court ultimately declined to pause that order, requiring DOGE to turn over the documents sought by CREW. In seeking the Supreme Court's intervention, Solicitor General D. John Sauer said CREW is conducting a "fishing expedition" into DOGE's activities. He warned that if Cooper's order remains in place, several components of the White House, such as the offices of the chief of staff and national security adviser, would be subject to FOIA. "That untenable result would compromise the provision of candid, confidential advice to the president and disrupt the inner workings of the Executive Branch," Sauer wrote. "Yet, in the decisions below, the court of appeals and district court treated a presidential advisory body as a potential 'agency' based on the persuasive force of its recommendations — threatening opening season for FOIA requests on the president's advisors." But lawyers for CREW told the Supreme Court in a filing that the Justice Department's position "would require courts to blindly yield to the Executive's characterization" of the authority and operations of a component of the Executive Office of the President. They said adopting the Trump administration's approach to DOGE would give the president "free reign" to create new entities within the Executive Office of the President that exercise substantial independent authority but are shielded from transparency laws. "Courts would be forced to blindly accept the government's representations about an EOP unit's realworld operations, unable to test those representations through even limited discovery," CREW's lawyers wrote. "It is that extreme position, not the discovery order, that would 'turn[] FOIA on its head.'"
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Proud Boys Sue DOJ For $100 Million Over Jan. 6 Arrests
On his first day in office, President Donald Trump issued a blanket pardon to more than 1,500 people charged in the deadly Jan. 6 insurrection. But it still wasn't enough. Now, five Proud Boys leaders are suing the Department of Justice (DOJ) over their prosecutions and asking the government to surrender millions. The lawsuit, filed by Dominic Pezzola, Henry 'Enrique' Tarrio, Ethan Nordean, Joe Biggs, and Zachary Rehl, asks the government to pay them $100 million in restitution, despite the fact that the latter four were found guilty of engaging in a seditious 2021 conspiracy to keep Trump in power. Two years after the riot, Tarrio, Nordean, Biggs and Rehl were found guilty of plotting to oppose Congress' election certification by force. Pezzola was the only one who was acquitted of seditious conspiracy but was still found guilty of assaulting police, stealing a riot shield, smashing a window breached by rioters, conspiring to impede lawmakers and police, and more. The five men filed the lawsuit Friday in Florida, putting the ball in Trump's court to either defend the prosecutions or pay an exorbitant sum at taxpayers' expense. The Proud Boys is a far-right militant organization that promotes political violence and embraces misogynistic, xenophobic, and anti-LGBTQ+ ideologies. If the DOJ decides to pay the Proud Boys members, many Democrats worry that it could symbolize the president's willingness to outwardly sanction political violence and empower extremists. In the pardon proclamation announced on Jan. 20, Trump noted that the controversial mercy 'ends a grave national injustice that has been perpetrated upon the American people over the last four years and begins a process of national reconciliation.' Prior to the pardons, Tarrio, Nordean, Biggs, Rehl, and Pezzola were each sentenced to 22, 18, 17, 15, and 10 years in prison, respectively. The Proud Boys members claim there was an 'egregious and systemic abuse of the legal system and the United States Constitution to punish and oppress political allies of President Trump, by any and all means necessary, legal, or illegal.' 'A settlement would suggest that the violence of January 6 was entirely justified,' Matthew Dallek, a political historian at The George Washington University, told The Washington Post. 'It would say to the country that these Proud Boys who were convicted in a court of law, in a fair trial, were wrongfully prosecuted and victims. It just turns the entire day on its head.' The insurrection interrupted Congress' attempt to certify former President Joe Biden as the winner of the 2020 election. After a mob stormed the Capitol, five people died in or immediately after the violence and 140 officers were assaulted. The Daily Beast has reached out to the Trump administration for comment.
