Why Withholding Your Taxes in Protest Could Actually Help Trump and Musk
Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily.
It's tax season, and if you're upset about how things are going in government right now, you might be tempted to protest by withholding your taxes. After all, conservatives had their Tea Party moment. Why shouldn't those opposed to the efforts of President Donald Trump and Elon Musk to dismantle the government, alienate our allies, and degrade America's standing in the world have their own? But there are a few reasons why this would be a bad idea.
As a preliminary matter, the tea party reference just doesn't work. True, the taxes the original tea partiers protested were tariffs, and tariffs are one of the many things people are protesting today. However, the original tea partiers dumped the imported tea into the harbor rather than purchase the goods and pay the tariffs. No one seems to be suggesting that we dump imports into the harbor. If nothing else, the environmentalists would have a fit!
While not filing or paying taxes is a more environmentally friendly form of protest, it would have its own issues. For one thing, the tax revenues at issue in 1775 were to be sent to England. Any forgone tax revenues now would affect our own government, which builds our roads and pays for our defense, education, etc. If your complaint is that you want more government, not less, reducing government revenues by refusing to pay your taxes is an odd way to go about it. Any tax protest now would hurt us, not some foreign power.
But if you're still considering it, here are a few more things to consider.
The first is philosophical. Tax protests have a long history in the U.S., ranging from the Whiskey Rebellion to a variety of anti-war protests. The former was a protest against a tax, while the latter were aimed at U.S. foreign policy. Folks today are contemplating the second kind of protest, though they are angered by a wide array of government actions, ranging from tariffs and foreign policy to the decisions to fire government workers and dismantle agencies, and efforts to cut research funding and dictate to colleges and universities what can and cannot be taught. (The full list of things one might protest is too long to get into fully here.)
The question is: When are protests warranted? We have a democratic government, where the majority gets to set policy and decide what to spend money on and how much. When does disagreement with government policy rise to the level that it justifies a refusal to pay taxes? We could all identify something that might inspire us to protest, whether from the left or the right: war, abortion, guns, the death penalty, NPR. The list goes on. The problem is: We are either committed to our democratic process or we are not. It would be ironic for those outraged about the attack on the rule of law to protest by … ignoring the law.
The second consideration is strategic. In many ways, it is like the conundrum the Senate Democrats just faced regarding the government shutdown. Trump and Musk are determined to shrink the government workforce and slash government spending. I'm not saying the Dems were right to support the continuing resolution, but a government shutdown could well have strengthened Trump's hand. The government needs more money, not less. Folks are already predicting the loss of $500 billion based on what DOGE is doing to the IRS. A refusal to pay taxes would only exacerbate these losses and could make it easier for Republicans to argue for deeper cuts.
Finally, there are the financial and legal consequences. Civil protest can be a powerful tool, bringing attention to injustice and bad government policy. But no matter how just the cause, it does not permit folks to break the law with impunity. Failure to file and pay taxes can lead to two different penalties and interest charges that can outstrip the amount owed if enough time passes. It can even lead to criminal charges and prison. Just ask Hunter Biden.
And don't think that you might get away with it because the IRS will be seriously understaffed. If you're a working stiff with a W-2 and some 1099s, the government already has most of your tax information, and the collection process associated with that information is largely automated. The sad fact is that reducing the IRS's auditing capacity will primarily degrade its ability to go after the wealthy, leaving the rest of us holding the bag.
No one enjoys paying taxes under the best of circumstances. And refusing to pay to advance one's cause can make it all seem noble. But it is not that simple. Nothing ever is. So, feel free to fantasize about standing up to the man and refusing to pay your taxes. You can even imagine yourself wearing a tricorne hat. However, to paraphrase Michelle Obama, if you're worried or upset about what's going on today, do something … else.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
WIRED
14 minutes ago
- WIRED
The ‘Long-Term Danger' of Trump Sending Troops to the LA Protests
Jun 10, 2025 12:24 PM President Trump's deployment of more than 700 Marines to Los Angeles—following ICE raids and mass protests—has ignited a fierce national debate over state sovereignty and civil-military boundaries. LAPD officers and National Guard soldiers stand on patrol as demonstrators protest outside a jail in downtown Los Angeles following two days of clashes with police during a series of immigration raids on June 8, 2025. Photograph:As hundreds of United States Marines deploy in Los Angeles under presidential orders to protect federal property amid growing protests over immigration enforcement, constitutional scholars and civil rights attorneys warn of long-term implications for American democracy and civil-military relations. President Donald Trump revealed Monday that he had ordered the deployment of more than 700 activity-duty Marines out of Camp Pendleton—an extraordinary use of military force in response to civil unrest. The move, widely condemned by his critics, follows Trump's federalization of the National Guard. Some 3,800 guardsmen have since been deployed in California against the objections of its government, spurring debate among legal observers over the limits of the president's power to send troops into American streets. Trump ordered the deployments in response to thousands of Angelenos who took to the streets on Friday in protests. LA residents responded after Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents carried out sweeping raids of local businesses, arresting, among others, dozens of day laborers who were vying for work outside a local Home Depot. Larger demonstrations soon formed and remained largely peaceful until residents were engaged by police with riot shields and crowd control weapons. Over the weekend, the clashes between police and protesters escalated across many neighborhoods with large immigrant populations. Numerous buildings were vandalized with anti-ICE messages, and several Waymo autonomous vehicles were set ablaze. Videos captured by protest attendees show police firing upon demonstrators with rubber bullets and other crowd control agents, including waves of asphyxiating CS gas. Members of the press shared images online showing injuries they incurred from the police assault. In widely shared footage, a Los Angeles police officer appears to intentionally target an Australian reporter, Lauren Tomasi, shooting her from feet away with a rubber bullet as she delivers a monologue into a camera. On Monday, CNN correspondent Jason Carroll was arrested live on air. California governor Gavin Newsom condemned Trump's troop deployment in posts on social media, calling the president's actions an 'unmistakable step toward authoritarianism.' His attorney general, Rob Bonata, has filed a lawsuit in federal court claiming the order violated the state's sovereignty, infringing on Newsom's authority as the California National Guard's commander in chief. In response to a request for comment, the Department of Defense referred WIRED to a US Northern Command press release detailing the deployment of Marines and National Guardsmen. Federal troops in the United States are ordinarily barred from participating in civilian law enforcement activities. This rule, known as 'posse comitatus,' may be suspended, however, by a sitting president in cases of civil unrest or outright rebellion. This exception—permitted under the Insurrection Act—allows the president to deploy troops when circumstances make it 'impracticable' for state authorities to enforce federal law by 'ordinary' means. While these powers are most often invoked at the request of a state government, the president may also invoke the act when a state chooses to ignore the constitutional rights of its inhabitants—as happened multiple times in the mid-20th century, when southern states refused to desegregate schools after the Supreme Court's landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision. President Trump, however, has so far not invoked the Insurrection Act, relying instead on a theory of 'inherent authority' advanced by the US Justice Department in 1971 during the height of the anti–Vietnam War protests. This interpretation of presidential power finds that troops may be deployed in an effort to 'protect federal property and functions.' Notably—unlike the Insurrection Act—this does not permit troops to engage in activities that are generally the purview of civilian law enforcement agencies. Trump also invoked statutory power granted to him by Congress under Title 10 of the US Code, which enabled him to federalize elements of California's National Guard. These activations typically occur when guardsmen are needed to support overseas military operations, as happened routinely this century during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Domestically, however, guardsmen are not usually federalized without the agreement of a state's governor—unless the Insurrection Act has been invoked. Legal experts interviewed by WIRED offered a range of opinions on the president's authority to deploy active-duty military troops or federalize the National Guard. While most believe it is likely within Trump's power to ignore Newsom's express objections, doing so without an invocation of the Insurrection Act, they say, is a decision fraught with legal complexities that carries serious implications, from altering—perhaps permanently—the fundamental relationship between Americans, states, and the federal government, to disturbing the delicate balance between civilian governance and military power. Liza Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program, underscores the 'unprecedented' nature of Trump's approach. 'He's trying to basically exercise the powers of the Insurrection Act without invoking it,' she says. A key issue for Goitein is that the memorandum signed by Trump last week federalizing the National Guard makes no mention of Los Angeles or California. Rather, it states that the guardsmen are being mobilized to address protests that are both 'occurring' and 'likely to occur.' In essence, the memo 'authorizes the deployment of federal troops anywhere in the country,' Goitein says, 'including places where there are no protests yet. We're talking about preemptive deployment.' Goitein argues that the administration's justifications could undermine both judicial accountability and civil‑military boundaries. Under the Insurrection Act, federal troops can take on the responsibilities of local and state police. But without it, their authority should be quite limited. Neither the guardsmen nor the Marines, for instance, should engage with protesters acting peacefully, according to Goitein. 'He says they're there to protect federal property,' she says. 'But it looks a lot like quelling civil unrest.' Anthony Kuhn, a 28-year US Army veteran and managing partner at Tully Rinckey, believes, meanwhile, that there is really 'no question' that Trump would be justified in declaring a 'violent rebellion' underway in California, empowering him to ignore Newsom's objections. The images and video of protesters hurling rocks and other items at police and lighting cars on fire all serve as evidence toward that conclusion. 'I know people in California, the governor, the mayor, are trying to frame it as a protest. But at this point,' says Kuhn, 'it's a violent rebellion. You can draw your own conclusions from the pictures and videos floating around.' Kuhn argues that the intentions of the protesters, the politics fueling the demonstrations, don't matter. 'They're attacking federal facilities. They're destroying federal property. So in an attempt to restore the peace, the president has the authority under Title 10 to deploy troops. It's pretty straightforward.' In contrast, Rutgers University professor Bruce Afran says deploying military forces against Americans is 'completely unconstitutional' in the absence of a true state of domestic insurrection. 'There was an attack on ICE's offices, the doorways, there was some graffiti, there were images of protesters breaking into a guardhouse, which was empty,' he says. 'But even if it went to the point of setting a car on fire, that's not a domestic insurrection. That's a protest that is engaged in some illegality. And we have civil means to punish it without the armed forces.' Afran argues that meddling with the expectations of civilians, who naturally anticipate interacting with police but not armed soldiers, can fundamentally alter the relationship between citizens and their government, even blurring the line between democracy and authoritarianism. 'The long-term danger is that we come to accept the role of the army in regulating civilian protest instead of allowing local law enforcement to do the job,' he says. 'And once we accept that new paradigm—to use a kind of BS word—the relationship between the citizen and the government is altered forever.' 'Violent rioters in Los Angeles, enabled by Democrat governor Gavin Newsom, have attacked American law enforcement, set cars on fire, and fueled lawless chaos," Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, tells WIRED. "President Trump rightfully stepped in to protect federal law enforcement officers. When Democrat leaders refuse to protect American citizens, President Trump will always step in.' As the orders to mobilize federal troops have come down, some users on social media have urged service members to consider the orders unlawful and refuse to obey—a move that legal experts say would be very difficult to pull off. David Coombs, a lecturer in criminal procedure and military law at the University of Buffalo and a veteran of the US Army's Judge Advocate General's Corps, says it's hypothetically possible that troops could question whether Trump has the authority to mobilize state guardsmen over the objection of a state governor. 'I think ultimately the answer to that will be yes,' he says. 'But it is a gray area. When you look at the chain of command, it envisions the governor controlling all of these individuals.' Separately, says Coombs, when troops are ordered to mobilize, they could—again, hypothetically—refuse to engage in activities that are beyond the scope of the president's orders, such as carrying out immigration raids or making arrests. 'All they can do in this case, under Title 10 status, is protect the safety of federal personnel and property. If you go beyond that, then it violates the Posse Comitatus Act.' Federal troops, for instance, would need civilian police to step in. At the point, authorities want peaceful protesters to disperse. The San Francisco Chronicle reports that, in a letter on Sunday, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem requested that military troops be directed to detain alleged 'lawbreakers' during protests 'or arrest them,' which legal experts almost universally agree would be illegal under ordinary circumstances. The letter was addressed to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and accused the anti-ICE protesters of being 'violent, insurrectionist mobs' aiming to 'protect invaders and military aged males belonging to identified foreign terrorist organizations.' Khun, who warns there's a big difference between philosophizing over what constitutes an unlawful order and disobeying commands, dismisses the idea that troops, in the heat of the moment, will have an option. 'It's not going to be litigated in the middle of an actual deployment,' he says. 'There's no immediate relief, no immediate way to prove that an order is unlawful.' Khun says that were he deployed into a similar situation, 'me and my junior soldiers would not respond to a nonviolent or peaceful protest.' Asked what protesters should expect, should they engage with federal troops trained for combat overseas, Kuhn says the Marines will hold their ground more firmly than police, who are often forced to retreat as mobs approach. In addition to being armed with the same crowd control weapons, Marines are extensively trained in close-quarters combat. 'I would expect a defensive response,' he says, 'but not lethal force.' Additional reporting by Alexa O'Brien.
USA Today
27 minutes ago
- USA Today
Students use National History Day to challenge power, spark change
Students use National History Day to challenge power, spark change Show Caption Hide Caption CA Gov. Newsom fired back at Trump, border czar Homan California Governor Gavin Newsom fired back after President Trump hinted border czar Homan should arrest him if he interfered in ICE raids. COLLEGE PARK, MD – The day President Donald Trump sent 700 Marines to Los Angeles to help stop protests over immigration enforcement, dozens of middle school students defended their research projects on friction between governments and protesters. Among the displays in the exhibit hall at the annual National History Day competition was a New York entry titled "The Kent State Massacre: Tension Between Protests and Authority." The website competition included an entry from Louisiana on Vietnam War protests, and in the documentary section, a South Carolina entry discussed the first major colonial protest, the Boston Tea Party. The annual competitions' theme of rights and responsibilities was selected long before last fall's election, but many entries took the opportunity to explain the history behind what is happening in America under the new administration. "They are very in tune to what's happening in the world, and they're concerned, and they want to know more," said the organization's executive director Cathy Gorn. "And they're drawn naturally to topics of fairness. So you'll see a lot of civil rights, human rights, justice-type of topics here, but that's so natural for a young person to kind of gravitate in that direction." About 3,000 of the 500,000 students who participate in the local and state competitions make it to the national contest, which involves multiple days of judging at the University of Maryland. Their final projects – which can take the form of displays, websites, essays, performances or documentaries – detail the history of the First Amendment, the country's responsibility to refugees, LGBTQ+ people being kicked out of the military, abortion rights, women's suffrage, foreign policy, medical experimentation and much more. The Trump administration has attacked or downplayed many of the events that are the subject of their entries, saying that American history reflected in museums, archives, libraries and education should not emphasize the country's failures. "Some have suggested that if we teach kids about the tragedies in our past, that somehow we're going to make them feel bad. Well, the exact opposite happens, because they're coming at it fresh, and they're looking at all the angles. And we tell them, you have to have multiple perspectives. You have to look at all sides and do the research and let the historical characters speak to you and tell you their story," Gorn said. Future unclear In early April, National History Day lost the grant the National Endowment for the Humanities has awarded is consistently for more than 50 years, which makes up about 20% of its budget. More: States scramble after Trump's 'devastating' cuts to humanities grants State Humanities Councils, which organize and hold the local and state level competitions students participate in to reach the national contest, all had their grants canceled. Without that funding, several states might lose their humanities councils altogether in the coming weeks. "The loss is much bigger than what happens at the top. People think up here at the federal level 'we kicked out an agency, and that's great because we're saving some money,' but that has a ripple effect. It has a domino effect, all the way down to the local level, and certainly we're seeing that with National History Day," Gorn said. This year, the National History Day organization was able to rally public support and get funding for students who couldn't come without state help. "Everybody is here, but I don't know what next year is going to look like," Gorn said. "It'll be a horrible, horrible shame for kids and teachers not to be able to participate." Tens of thousands of teachers use materials created by the National History Day organization to make the topic more hands on, teaching students to analyze information for themselves and how to verify sources to determine the truth. "It's not just this contest. This culminates in a contest. It's a year-long program that's done in the classroom, and teachers use History Day and the materials we have, the training programs we have, to make their teaching better. But if that goes away, then we are back to boring textbooks, taking the multiple choice test, fill out the blank worksheet, never remember it again," Gorn said. Trading pins and asking good questions Clusters of students in business attire filled the hallways of the University's Stamp Student Union, stressing about their presentations and trading buttons and pins with students from other states. Some had focused their research on bigger, well-known topics like the Little Rock Nine, the Holocaust or passage of the Endangered Species Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. McKenna Menold, 13, and Sarah Haney, 14, of St. James School in Elizabethtown, Kentucky researched the history of banning books in part because they realized it is happening in the United States today. "I felt really connected to the topic," Sarah said. "I wanted to share with people that banning books does still happen, and it shouldn't be happening anywhere, not just the United States, but anywhere in the world, because literature is such an important part (of) history." Other kids zoomed in on local or specific people and topics. Sadie Lankford, 14, and Scarlett Rauen, 14, of Holly Shelter Middle School in Castle Hayne, N.C. said they chose to focus on the case of the Wilmington Ten civil rights activists from in their backyard ‒ but who have been left out of school textbooks. "It was surprising that we hadn't learned about it outside of specifically doing the research, because this was honestly a defining moment for the U.S.," Sadie said. The Wilmington Ten were 10 civil rights activists who were falsely convicted of arson and conspiracy and incarcerated for nearly a decade following a 1971 school desegregation riot in Wilmington, North Carolina. To create their report, the girls reviewed autobiographies, newspaper clippings and even interviewed protest leaders. "These kids, they are not shy about calling up presidents and generals and civil rights heroes and all that," Gorn said. "And they'll talk to them.. because the kids are genuine and they're asking good questions."
Bloomberg
29 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Marines Arrive in LA as Police Chief Warns Over Lack of Notice
Marines deployed by President Donald Trump arrived in the Los Angeles area after the city's police chief warned of significant challenges to law enforcement if it was done without co-ordination with his department. Seven hundred troops from the 2nd Battalion, 7th Marines have made it to the greater LA area, a spokesperson for the US Northern Command said, without disclosing their specific location or duties. They will join about 2,100 members of the 79th Infantry Brigade Combat Team who are also on location in the area, including in Paramount and Compton, according to the spokesperson.
