Treasury moves to restrict tax credits following shooting

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: The Hill

11/28/25 5:27 PM ET


Following the shooting of two National Guard members serving in Washington, D.C., Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced that the Trump administration will be putting limits on who can get certain federal tax credits.

The shooting occurred two blocks from the White House, in what has been described as an ambush-style shooting of two West Virginia National Guard members. Spc. Sarah Beckstrom died from her injuries while Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe remains in critical condition.

The suspect in the shooting is an Afghan national who entered the U.S. as part of a Biden-era humanitarian program to resettle Afghans. He was later granted asylum by the Trump administration.

Bessent said on the social platform X that the Treasury department would be working to ensure that those in the country illegally and “other unqualified aliens” would not be able to access certain federal tax credits. The rule appears to have already been in the works, with the department moving to reclassify certain tax credits as federal public benefits.

Read more: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5625931-national-guard-shooting-tax-credit-limits/

[Walleye]

1. The fact that the shooter wasn't in the country illegal is irrelevant to these people

[ALBliberal]

2. They can't access it now. Geez.

[erronis]

3. That makes total sense! (NOT!!!)

I thought Bessent looked like a well-dressed robot but even AI isn't this stupid.

[twodogsbarking]

4. Reminds me of a time there were "whites only" signs in the south and white people were ok with that.

[DJ Synikus Makisimus]

5. WASPs-only does seem to be the plan,

Last edited Fri Nov 28, 2025, 08:50 PM - Edit history (1)

as long as they're rich. Remember, Trump and his minions officially have over three years to go, and who know if elections will still be a thing then. They're just getting started.

[sinkingfeeling]

6. And here I thought the tax acts and credits were the domain of Congress.

[Igel]

7. We had that debate months ago.

When SCOTUS said that there were limits to how much the administrative agencies could change or reinterpret to implement statute.

They didn't say that the literal, most restrictive construction of the text of a statute was an absolute limit, but they did sharply restrict the range of what could be read into the text.

It's like with SNAP--what's covered and who's covered has wiggle room in the text, so Biden could increase the range of who's covered (but Congress still had to fund it). And many on DU argued that SCOTUS' restriction was utterly wrong, mostly because the availability hierarchy we had built into us at the time said that administrative interpretations are just good. (That wiggle room may yet be reduced given the '25 SCOTUS docket. Stay tuned.)

As for whether some of the tax credits may cover certain categories of residents by list, must cover them (by list), or simply say that the they apply where the IRS says they do (with some sort of restrictions) ... Dunno. But the statutes' text is public, might be worth taking a gander at it.