It is February 2. Welcome to yestohellwith.com.

Now that Donald Trump is in office, it’s important to speak plainly about what can happen, what cannot happen, and what would happen if certain lines were even approached.

The idea that a sitting president could abolish the IRS is not just unlikely—it is structurally impossible without catastrophic consequences.

And that matters.

To be clear: when people say “eliminate,” many mean it literally. They are not confusing elimination with restraint. They are not talking about budget cuts, leadership changes, or fewer audits. They genuinely believe that because Trump is in office, the IRS will cease to exist—that it will be dismantled, abolished, and gone.

That belief is understandable.It is also structurally wrong.

The IRS is not a policy preference.It is not an agency that exists by executive grace.It is the administrative instrument through which Congress’s taxing power is executed.

Eliminating the IRS—literally—without repealing or fundamentally rewriting the taxing statutes would not eliminate federal taxation. It would only remove one enforcement mechanism, which would be immediately replaced by another under a different name. The authority would remain. The obligation would remain. Only the label would change.

More importantly, even suggesting abolition from the Oval Office would be catastrophic.

Markets would react instantly.Federal credit would be questioned.Bond ratings would be threatened.Treasury operations would destabilize.Courts would intervene.Congress would move to counteract.

Not because the IRS is sacred, but because federal revenue continuity is foundational to the current system. Even signaling uncertainty about collection authority would be interpreted as a threat to the government’s ability to function.

That is not political theory.That is operational reality.

This is why no sitting president—Trump included—ever suggests abolition. It would trigger immediate institutional resistance across every branch of government and every financial sector tied to federal solvency.

So when people say, “Trump will eliminate the IRS,” what they are really expressing is a hope that the system itself will be undone by personality or election.

Liberty Dialogues rejects that hope—not because it lacks sympathy, but because it misunderstands how power is structured.

Presidents manage enforcement.They do not erase statutory authority.Agencies are instruments, not sources.

If the IRS vanished tomorrow, the power behind it would not. It would reappear—rebranded, reorganized, and reauthorized—because the law that creates obligation would still be intact.

That is the distinction Liberty Dialogues insists on making.

Trump, as a sitting president, can restrain enforcement, redirect priorities, change leadership, influence funding, and limit abuses. But he cannot—and will not—challenge the jurisdictional foundation of federal taxation from the Oval Office without triggering a constitutional and financial crisis.

That is not cowardice.That is constraint.

And it is why waiting for any president to “eliminate the IRS” misunderstands how power is actually organized.

Liberty is not restored by removing an agency.It is restored by understanding authority, jurisdiction, and status, and by refusing to concede them by presumption.

Agencies execute power.They do not create it.

And power does not disappear just because its instrument does.

That is the reality—whether people like it or not.