
Addressing Tax Policy Challenges For Workers With Disabilities
Disabled person sign and gavel. Accessibility law concept.
In this episode of Tax Notes Talk, Kimie Eacobacci of the National Council on Disability details how a 60-year-old revenue ruling can exclude workers with disabilities from standard employment benefits and protections.
Tax Notes Talk is a podcast produced by Tax Notes. This transcript has been edited for clarity.
David D. Stewart: Welcome to the podcast. I'm David Stewart, editor in chief of Tax Notes Today International. This week: tax and disability.
Federal law prohibits employers from discriminating against disabled workers, but some workplaces may be using a half-century-old IRS ruling to do just that. A recent study conducted by the National Council on Disability [NCD]
This week's episode is part of a series we've been doing on how tax rules affect marginalized groups. We'll include links in the show notes to our previous episodes on the intersection of tax and racial inequality, LGBTQ rights, feminism, diversity, and the tax bar, tribal taxation, race-based tax weapons and wealth and inequality.
But joining me now to talk more about the National Council on Disability's findings is their legislative affairs specialist, Kimie Eacobacci. Kimie, welcome to the podcast.
Kimie Eacobacci: Well, thank you so much, David, for having me today, and we are excited that you're interested in — hopefully, your audience is interested in the National Council on Disability's report.
David D. Stewart: Well, we love talking about anything tax. Could you just give me an overview of this study that you performed?
Kimie Eacobacci: So for your audience today who's probably not familiar with NCD, I just want to give a little bit of a background about our agency because we are an independent federal agency. We were created in 1978. We were first housed under the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. And then in 1984, Congress made NCD an independent federal agency.
And so in 1986 we wrote the first draft of the Americans With Disabilities Act, which was introduced in the House and Senate in 1988 and then was ultimately signed into law by President Bush in 1990. And since then, our agency, we are charged statutorily to conduct evaluations over policies and programs and how they can impact people with disabilities. And we advise the president, Congress and federal agencies.
My role as the legislative affairs specialist at NCD, I work more closely with Congress and congressional committees, but on this report — I was the lead on this report. I was able to work with the Internal Revenue Service as well with their taxpayer advocate office.
David D. Stewart: And I should clarify for listeners that an independent agency is a government body that was established outside of an executive branch department, with limited presidential control.
Kimie Eacobacci: So an overview of this report — during the pandemic, NCD was alerted by attorneys for a blind woman in Louisiana who was furloughed when a sheltered workshop that she worked at was closed due to the pandemic. Now she had applied for unemployment benefits, and the state of Louisiana's Workforce Commission determined that she was not an employee, she was a rehabilitation client.
NCD was very interested in how this could happen because this woman had been working at the sheltered workshop as an employee for years. She was being paid regular wages. She had some benefits. So we were not understanding how the state would determine she was a rehabilitation client and not an employee.
We were also concerned that when the sheltered workshop closed and everything else was closed, what sources of income would she have during the pandemic? Because she also lost the enhanced pandemic unemployment insurance. So that's why we underwent this study.
David D. Stewart: So before we move on to get deeper into this, I think we might need to define some terms for the sake of our listeners. First of all, what does a rehabilitation client mean?
Kimie Eacobacci: Currently, we have — there are federal programs that are intended to provide job training and skills to people with disabilities and transition them into what is currently known as competitive integrated employment. In our report, what we found is that disability policy and disability employment policy has evolved so much, but within the tax code, as we've seen, there's a lot of terms that were created in the 1960s that aren't consistent with current disability policy. And so we're finding that the tax code hasn't kept pace with the evolution of disability laws. And so that's another reason why NCD was really interested in undergoing this study.
David D. Stewart: And what is a sheltered workshop that you've mentioned?
Kimie Eacobacci: To understand how sheltered workshops operate, historically, what they were — in the 1960s, when this revenue ruling that we'll be discussing today, when it was created — at that time, socially, it was acceptable to institutionalize people with disabilities and put them in an institution, give them menial tasks to perform and pay them marginal wages. And that was intended to protect people with disabilities. And so we're seeing that a lot of these policies and laws and programs back in the '60s were intended to protect these individuals and keep them away from the burdens and the responsibilities of employment, like paying taxes.
However, they still exist now. Today, what has happened is, starting in the 1970s, Congress wanted to start mainstreaming or socializing people with disabilities. And so they've passed several laws, like in 1973, the Rehabilitation Act, which prohibits discrimination of people with disabilities from recipients of federal funding.
Capitol city. Travel Destination.
Then Congress passed the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, which guaranteed a right to public education for people with disabilities. And then you have the Americans With Disabilities Act, which continued to systematically bring people with disabilities into the community and give them an equal opportunity to have employment. Today, the term "sheltered workshop" is no longer used as much. It's transitioned to a "community rehabilitation program."
So what we're seeing now is that people with disabilities, they can get training in a rehabilitation program, and some choose to stay there and work as an employee. However, we're finding that some of these sheltered workshops/community rehabilitation programs are keeping these people as rehabilitation client status even after the rehabilitation program has ended. And that's why we're having problems.
David D. Stewart: So let's talk about the revenue ruling at issue here. I believe it's 65-165. Tell me, what does it do and what issues is it creating?
Kimie Eacobacci: Sure. Revenue Ruling 65-165, it outlines three scenarios for people with disabilities in sheltered workshops. So they are a rehabilitation client status, an employee status, and then an independent contractor. And in our report, we didn't focus more on the independent contractor classification; we focused more on the rehabilitation client status because that's what we're seeing more of as we were doing more research.
And so it's actually unique because when I was talking to people about this revenue ruling, they only thought of employee versus independent contractor. They didn't realize there's actually three for people with disabilities who are in these sheltered workshop programs.
Under this revenue ruling, during the process of training, while the person is receiving rehabilitation services — which could be like job training or helping them write a resume or anything like that, job counseling — the revenue ruling states that the workshop supervises and directs the person as a trainee. And that was intended to rehabilitate and protect the person. And in this situation, the person with a disability is performing rehabilitation activities, not work, and there's no employment relationship in the circumstance.
Now, under the employee status — and I think this is where a lot of these provider employers are having some confusion — is that when the person with a disability has completed the training and is capable of performing jobs offered by the workshop or the rehabilitation program employer, the person with a disability may continue to work in the workshop temporarily as an employee while waiting placement of jobs in the private industry. Or they can work in the workshop permanently as an employee if unable to compete in the regular industry. And in these two situations, the person with a disability is working, is an employee and is able to receive benefits.
In addition, what we're seeing with this classification issue is that when the person with a disability is a rehabilitation client, the compensation they receive is classified as not wages for tax purposes, it's awards, incentives, and reimbursements. And so that's where NCD is also concerned too, is the misclassification of their compensation as well.
David D. Stewart: So what sort of outcomes is this creating for these employees that are not quite employees under the rule?
Kimie Eacobacci: What we've seen is — for example, with this situation, we found that the woman was denied unemployment benefits. We're also seeing that this misclassification keeps people with disabilities off the employer's payroll, which is really concerning to us as well too because it forces them to stay on Medicaid, whereas their nondisabled counterparts are receiving health insurance from the employer.
A Plate with word Medicaid and a stethoscope.
We're concerned that the misclassification of the compensation may leave them ineligible for the IRS's antipoverty programs like the earned income tax credit and other credits as well too. And then we are hoping that we would never find this, but there could be some people who have not been paying into Social Security and accumulating the required credits to be eligible for retirement benefits. I think as we hear more stories from people with disabilities, we will find additional concerns about this misclassification.
David D. Stewart: So why is the misclassification happening? If these people are basically becoming employees of the organization, why not treat them as employees of the organization?
Kimie Eacobacci: So what we're finding is that there are some bad providers — that's the problem too, is you have these employers that are providers of rehabilitation services and they're also employers and it gives them a lot of discretion.
But also too, during our investigation, we found online bulletins with tax attorneys for these sheltered workshops who were claiming or informing each other that based on Revenue Ruling 65-165, that all people with disabilities in the sheltered workshop were rehabilitation clients. They're making these broad assertions, and they're also saying that the compensation paid to all the people with disabilities is not a wage for IRS purposes. NCD, we recommend revoking Revenue Ruling 65-165 and using the IRS's common-law test to determine employment status.
David D. Stewart: Is this normal for NCD to engage with tax policy in this way? This seems like something I haven't seen before.
Kimie Eacobacci: Correct. So NCD — I don't think the disability community, there's very few that have been brave enough to venture into tax. And even when I was doing this report and interviewing disability groups, I think a few got a little nervous about tax. A lot of them work more with the Department of Labor. NCD, we're excited to educate people with disabilities about tax. There's so many benefits to them now that we have able accounts and how to fund able accounts, we can use these anti-poverty programs to help fund able accounts. So I think the disability community is slowly getting excited about tax.
David D. Stewart: So how does this ruling interact with the Federal Unemployment Tax Act?
Kimie Eacobacci: The Federal Unemployment Tax Act codifies this revenue ruling, and even if Congress were to repeal [section] 3309(b)(4) — which is the exemption under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act that excludes people with disabilities in sheltered workshop from the term "employment" — the revenue ruling in itself can still be used, and the IRS has said this; they use the revenue ruling for both FICA taxes and unemployment tax purposes. So in our report, we recommend that policymakers revoke Revenue Ruling 65-165 and that Congress repeal the exemption under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act.
David D. Stewart: Does this system of keeping these workers outside of the normal world of tax and employment, does it create other issues for them when dealing with the IRS and accessing benefits?
Kimie Eacobacci: It would in that if someone at VITA [volunteer income tax assistance] were to assist someone with a disability who is working in a sheltered workshop and has their tax documents at the end of the year, I think tax preparers would also rely on the revenue ruling and then assume that these workers are not employees and then maybe make them pay the payroll tax and a self-employment tax instead.
So I think that's another problem that we are also concerned about too, is that these sheltered workshops might be offsetting their tax burden onto these workers.
David D. Stewart: So what other recommendations does your group have for the IRS? I know this came up out of an incident that happened during the pandemic. Are there other things out there that the IRS should be keeping an eye out for, for disabled workers?
The US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) building is seen on the first work day for furloughed federal ... More workers following a 35-day partial government shutdown in Washington, DC, January 28, 2019. - The five-week government shutdown subtracted $11 billion from the US economy, about twice the amount President Donald Trump sought to fund a border wall, an independent congressional body said Monday. (Photo by SAUL LOEB / AFP) (Photo credit should read SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images)
Kimie Eacobacci: So this report was like our agency's first dipping our toes into tax. We do think that the IRS should convene an interagency work group to identify other provisions that might be outdated, but also too, a lot of people with disabilities rely on government safety net programs. And so we don't want people with disabilities who need these programs to get kicked off. So we do need the IRS and like the Social Security Administration, agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services to kind of come together and identify when these people become reclassified, especially if they're reclassified retroactively, how can those payments affect their safety net benefits.
Another thing we — well, we strongly recommend that the IRS create like a disability advisory group within the IRS. We know that other federal agencies have done that too, to continue to identify new and emerging issues impacting people with disabilities. So for example, FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, they created one for people with disabilities for natural disasters. And we're seeing that that would be very helpful for the IRS to understand the needs of people with disabilities because they are so unique.
David D. Stewart: Well, yeah, definitely sounds like an area that could use some attention. Kimie, thank you so much for being here.
Kimie Eacobacci: Absolutely. And thank you again for having me.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
Hegseth faces sharp questions from Congress on deploying troops to Los Angeles
WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was met with sharp questions and criticism Tuesday by lawmakers who demanded details on his move to deploy troops to Los Angeles, and they expressed bipartisan frustration that Congress has not yet gotten a full defense budget from the Trump administration. 'Your tenure as secretary has been marked by endless chaos,' Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., told Hegseth. Others, including Republican leaders, warned that massive spending projects such as President Trump's desire for a $175 billion Golden Dome missile defense system will get broad congressional scrutiny. The troop deployment triggered several fiery exchanges that at times devolved into shouting matches as committee members and Hegseth yelled over one another. After persistent questioning about the cost of sending National Guard members and Marines to Los Angeles, Hegseth turned to his acting comptroller, Bryn Woollacott MacDonnell, who said it would cost $134 million. Hegseth defended Trump's decision to send the troops, saying they are needed to protect federal agents as they do their jobs. And he suggested that the use of troops in the United States will continue to expand. 'I think we're entering another phase, especially under President Trump with his focus on the homeland, where the National Guard and Reserves become a critical component of how we secure that homeland,' he said. The House Appropriations defense subcommittee hearing was the first time lawmakers have been able to challenge Trump's defense chief since he was confirmed. It is the first of three congressional hearings he will face this week. Lawmakers complained widely that Congress hasn't yet gotten details of the administration's first proposed defense budget, which Trump has said would total $1 trillion, a significant increase over the current spending level of more than $800 billion. And they said they are unhappy with the administration's efforts to go around Congress to push through changes. Key spending issues that have raised questions in recent weeks include plans to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on security upgrades to turn a Qatari jet into Air Force One and to pour as much as $45 million into a parade recently added to the Army's 250th birthday bash, which coincides with Trump's birthday Saturday. Rep. Betty McCollum, D-Minn., quizzed Hegseth on deploying about 700 active duty Marines to assist more than 4,100 National Guard troops in protecting federal buildings and personnel during immigration raid protests in Los Angeles. She got into a testy back-and-forth with him over the costs of the operation. He evaded the questions but later turned to MacDonnell, who provided the estimate and said it covers the costs of travel, housing and food. Hegseth said the 60-day deployment of troops is needed 'because we want to ensure that those rioters, looters and thugs on the other side assaulting our police officers know that we're not going anywhere.' Under the Posse Comitatus Act, troops are prohibited from policing U.S. citizens on American soil. Invoking the Insurrection Act, which allows troops to do that, is incredibly rare, and it's not clear if Trump plans to do it. The commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. Eric Smith, told lawmakers at a separate budget hearing Tuesday that the Marines who have arrived in Los Angeles have not yet been called on to respond. He said they have no arrest authority and are only there to protect federal property and federal personnel. When asked by Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat, about the danger Marines would use lethal force that could result in injuries and deaths, Smith said he is not concerned. 'I have great faith in my Marines and their junior leaders and their more senior leaders to execute the lawful tasks that they are given.' Committee members pressed Hegseth on Ukraine's surprise drone attack in early June that destroyed a large number of Russian bomber aircraft. And they questioned the administration's future funding for Kyiv. Hegseth said the strikes caught the U.S. off guard and represented significant advances in drone warfare. The attack has the Pentagon rethinking drone defenses 'so we are not vulnerable to a threat and an attack like that,' he said, adding that the department is learning from Ukraine and is focused on how to better defend its own military airfields. He acknowledged, however, that funding for Ukraine military assistance, which has been robust for the past two years, will be reduced in the upcoming defense budget. That cut means that Kyiv will receive fewer of the weapons systems that have been key to countering Russia's onslaught. 'This administration takes a very different view of that conflict,' he said. 'We believe that a negotiated peaceful settlement is in the best interest of both parties and our nation's interests.' The U.S. to date has provided Ukraine more than $66 billion in military aid since Russia invaded in February 2022. The panel zeroed in on funding issues, with only a few mentions of other entanglements that have marked Hegseth's early months. They touched only briefly on his moves to fire key military leaders and purge diversity programs. And there was no discussion of his use of the Signal messaging app to discuss operational details of strikes in Yemen. Hegseth has spent vast amounts of time during his first five months in office promoting the social changes he's making at the Pentagon. He's been far less visible in the administration's more critical international security crises and negotiations involving Russia, Ukraine, Israel, Gaza and Iran. Hegseth has posted numerous videos of his morning workouts with troops or of himself signing directives to purge diversity and equity programs and online content from the military. He has boasted of removing transgender service members from the force and firing so-called woke generals, many of whom were women. He was on the international stage about a week ago, addressing an annual national security conference in Asia about threats from China. But a trip to NATO headquarters last week was quick and quiet, and he deliberately skipped a gathering of about 50 allies and partners where they discussed support for Ukraine. Baldor and Copp write for the Associated Press. Adriana Gomez Licon in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., contributed reporting.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
‘Move fast and fix things': New Democrats push to lead their party's revamp
Brad Schneider has a vision for how moderate Democrats can help their party climb out of the wilderness: 'Move fast and fix things.' The Illinois congressman chairs the House's New Democrat Coalition, whose 114 members look for ways to meet Republican colleagues in the middle. He took the job in November, just after voters handed complete control of Washington to Republicans amid deep-seated economic dissatisfaction. Now Schneider is pushing for a lead role as the party's center seeks to reorient Democrats away from the progressive surge of the last five years. He wants to provide a roadmap for how Democrats can coalesce around wedge issues like Israel's war in Gaza, immigration, the debt, and cryptocurrency so they can win back Congress in 2026. 'Elon Musk has a reputation: He wanted to move fast and break things,' Schneider told Semafor from his Capitol office on Monday. 'The New Dems are looking to move fast and fix things.' Eleanor Mueller: What's your vision for how New Democrats can unite the various corners of the Democratic Party? Brad Schneider: We are the center of how we move the party forward. There's a lot of consternation about a lack of a single voice or a single leader for the Democrats. But we have an incredible talent pool — not just the 114 New Dems, but the folks we have in governorships. We're talking about ideas and policies that will improve life for all Americans — actually lower costs, make it easier to get ahead, and address the issues that we are facing from infrastructure. We've been talking about immigration and ways to move that forward since as long as I've been in Congress; innovation and also America's role in the world. Our message is about moving the country forward together, all Americans, and doing it in a way that isn't promising castles and clouds like Bernie Sanders likes to do, but just saying, 'How do we build from the ground up, step by step, so that we're going to be better and stronger and move forward each and every day?' Republicans say that the rioters in Los Angeles are doing what Democrats want. Why are they wrong? LA was quiet and calm, and then ICE began raids by showing up, sometimes in the dark at night, sometimes wearing masks. It's not that transparent. I think there is broad agreement throughout the country that, if there are people in this country who shouldn't be here, who are a threat to their communities, we should be taking actions to make sure that that threat is removed. But a country of laws, a country that celebrates its foundation on the Constitution and its implementation of those laws, due process and transparency — that stuff that we should welcome in the light of day, without the mess. The authorities in California and Los Angeles were taking the appropriate actions. The administration and Republicans, they're using this to further their narrative, to throw gasoline on the fire, to try to spark more anxiety and more fear. We should all be very concerned. I know in my community, people are anxious, people are scared. I also know in my community, we had a town hall on Saturday, and the questions were about, 'How do we protect the Constitution? How do we uphold the rule of law?' Do you think non-citizens participating in the protests should be deported? No. The Constitution uses the word 'citizen' 22 times; the word 'person' 49 times. There's only three places where the two are linked. People in the United States have the right to free speech. I'll defend people's right to speak, even when I disagree to my core with what they're saying. That doesn't give them the right to commit acts of violence, to intimidate, harass, and threaten other people. When it crosses the line, there should be consequences for everybody. Speaking of free speech, we've seen a lot of daylight in the party when it comes to the war between Israel and Hamas. How do you see the caucus moving forward on it? I don't think there's any debate that this war is horrible. And then within that, there's a debate of how to get to the most expeditious end — I know, for me, that's getting the hostages released, Hamas relinquishing control of Gaza, abandoning its threat to Israel, and then working within the Abraham Accords. The debate's fine. But denying the legitimacy of Israel or calling for the destruction of the Palestinians, you've crossed the line on both sides. How do you see the party moving forward on digital assets, given that there are Democrats with real hesitations around Trump-affiliated digital assets and then others who say Congress needs to act? The fact that the corruption is transparent and out in the open doesn't make it any less corrupt. But Congress can't wish away what's happening out in the world — and crypto is happening. How can the New Democrats bring party leadership along for what you want to do? We all have a great relationship with leadership. Leader Jeffries has been unfairly criticized, in my view, for going out of his way to listen to his caucus. There's a lot of different perspectives. But New Dems are the core; we're the majority of the caucus at 114 members. We are in the trenches, fighting on the front lines, dealing with the concerns of people who say, 'I can go either way. I'm looking for someone who's going to show us a vision to take us down the road that will lead to a better life for me and my family.' How are you thinking about the four-person race for ranking member on House Oversight in the context of the larger conversation about how Democrats treat seniority? I want to make sure we have the best person who is leading in committee, who knows how Congress works — which is complicated and nuanced in the best of times — but who also reflects who we are as a country. So I think there's a mix. I think seniority is something that you consider, but should not be determinative. Do you think there need to be more structural changes to how Democrats select committee leaders? I have ideas I will share with you at this time in 18 months.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump vs. Musk: Should we laugh or weep?
When you know a couple getting divorced, you might face a dilemma as to whose side to take. Such is not the case in the bitter public breakup between President Trump and Elon Musk. It is easy to say, 'A plague on both your houses.' The verbal fisticuffs between the world's wealthiest and the most powerful social media moguls is amusing but delivers nothing of substance to the American people. The brickbats flew when Musk called Trump's 'big beautiful' tax bill a 'disgusting abomination,' urging Congress to 'KILL the BILL.' Then Musk rhetorically polled his flock on X as to whether it was time to found a new political party representing the 80 percent of Americans 'in the middle.' Trump responded on his Truth Social that 'Elon was 'wearing thin'. I asked him to leave… and he just went CRAZY!' Trump in fact didn't fire Musk — Musk termed out, reaching the maximum number of days he could serve as a 'special government employee.' Trump's response was measured: 'I don't mind Elon turning against me, but he should have done so months ago. This is one of the greatest bills ever presented to Congress.' The budget bill would, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, grow the debt by $2.4 trillion over the next decade. Despite Trump's exaggerations, he cannot extend tax cuts and impose inflationary tariffs without causing slower growth and higher interest rates (in the process increasing the cost of debt service). There is also the clear and present danger that the escalating debt will trigger a cataclysmic financial crisis. And his beautiful bill leaves almost 11 million Americans without health insurance over the next decade. Musk endorsed a tweet suggesting that Trump should be impeached and replaced by Vice President JD Vance, then attacked Trump's most beloved issue: 'The Trump tariffs will cause a recession in the second half of this year.' The nonpartisan Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development essentially agrees that the tariffs are inflationary and will throttle growth. Musk also dropped a stink bomb: 'Donald Trump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public,' referring to the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, who killed himself in a federal prison while facing charges of sex trafficking. The derisive comments represented a stunning turnabout. Less than a week before, Trump gave Musk a key to the White House as an expression of gratitude for his work with the White House's Department of Government Efficiency or DOGE. What brought it all on? Trump said Musk was 'upset' that the pending legislation would roll back subsidies for electric vehicles. Musk denied he was even aware of it. While the game may be afoot between the men in the arena, there is more to this lovers' quarrel. The rift involves political risks for both sides. Trump aides promptly reached out to Musk in an effort to deescalate the conflict. There are now signs of an uneasy truce, even though Trump says he has no desire to mend the rift. Musk's posts about Epstein and possible impeachment were deleted, but who knows whether the cease-fire will hold. Before we start dancing and singing, 'Ding Dong, the witch is dead,' it is important to remember that certain salient features of the Trump-Musk regime remain. DOGE post-Musk is still with us, and it has not saved money while doing lasting damage. Nor has it created efficiency — it has thrown the baby out with the bathwater. The Trump-Musk budget (which Musk has now repudiated) cuts research funding to the bone — steps that would make the country less healthy and leave the field to China. For the past 80 years, the federal government has supported scientific research as a national engine of innovation. Support of basic research by the National Institute of Health has accomplished spectacular advances and makes critical contributions to the economy. For fiscal 2025, the total NIH budget is $48 billion, which may not even be fully awarded; the Trump budget for 2026 proposes to chop it by 44 percent to $27 billion. Meanwhile, China has nearly caught up to us in biotechnology and already conducts more clinical trials than the U.S. and Europe combined. Trump has terminated NIH grants before their scheduled end dates, with an inexplicably heavy bias against infectious disease and vaccine research — not to mention his war on our universities, with total termination at Harvard and freezes at Columbia, Brown and Northwestern. The Trump-Musk divorce is a reminder of indefensible policies, not a harbinger of good news. We will still witness (subject to eventual court rulings) Trump's revenge on law firms he doesn't like, arbitrary firings of civil servants and agency officials, and reciprocal tariffs based on specious claims of 'national emergency.' The poster child of the Trump-Musk legacy is the shuttering of USAID, a soft power success for 80 years that won hearts and minds for America globally. Pete Hegseth is still running amok in the Department of Defense, compromising national security with insecure communications of classified material and dismissing seasoned officers because of race, gender or alleged political disloyalty. Kristi Noem's Department of Homeland Security is still illegally deporting individuals without notice, hearing or hard evidence of undesirability. And Pam Bondi's Justice Department will continue to arrest judges, recommend pardons for the criminal faithful and dismiss strong cases against corrupt politicians. Much of what Trump has done is obviously illegal, but we will have to see if the courts stand up to him or water down their rulings to avoid a constitutional crisis. But legalities aside, is any of this sound policy? The Trump-Musk spat may be amusing, but, as Lord Byron wrote, 'And if I laugh at any mortal thing, 'Tis that I may not weep.' James D. Zirin, author and legal analyst, is a former federal prosecutor in New York's Southern District. He is also the host of the public television talk show and podcast Conversations with Jim Zirin. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.