Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How hase the government used loop holes
Executive summary
Government actors and private actors exploit legal gaps across tax, regulatory and spending rules; recent federal documents and reporting show intentional efforts to "close loopholes" (Treasury budget proposals) and specific fixes in laws and appropriations fights (hemp/“hemp intoxicants” and stock-repurchase excise ideas) [1] [2]. Coverage is uneven across topics — available sources focus heavily on tax code provisions and the 2025 government shutdown debate rather than a comprehensive catalog of all governmental loophole use [3] [4].
1. How “loopholes” appear in tax policy: carve-outs, preferences and expirations
Tax experts and policymakers regularly debate which parts of the code are legitimate incentives and which are loopholes; the Biden administration’s FY2025 revenue proposals explicitly target what it calls “monetization” loopholes such as the carried interest preference and like‑kind exchange rules, showing the government both creates and attempts to close tax advantages that can be used to reduce liabilities [1]. Private taxpayers and advisers use statutory preferences (deductions, credits and timing rules) that are part of the code — critics call many of these “loopholes,” while fiscal analysts note the same items can be popular policy tools (e.g., charitable deduction, retirement tax deferrals) rather than narrow abuses [5].
2. Legislative timing and sunset provisions create exploitable gaps
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) left many provisions set to expire after 2025; that sunset structure itself produces leverage and uncertainty that different political actors use to press for extensions or offsets. Republicans and Democrats have divergent aims for extending or limiting these provisions, which creates room for political maneuvering and selective extension of benefits to favored groups [3] [4]. The consequence: “loophole” arguments become bargaining chips in large reconciliation and appropriations fights [3] [4].
3. Administrative and statutory loopholes in non‑tax laws: targeted fixes after crises
When gaps produce visible harms, Congress sometimes writes narrow fixes. Reuters reporting on the 2025 shutdown-end deal highlights a provision to close a loophole that allowed some intoxicants to be sold as “hemp” under federal law — a specific, narrow legislative fix responding to market misuse [2]. That pattern — a well‑publicized problem exposing a narrow statutory gap followed by a targeted legislative closing — recurs across areas of regulation.
4. Shutdowns and appropriations create procedural loopholes and policy leverage
The 2025 federal shutdown illustrated how budget process failures produce leverage and procedural gaps: parties use continuing resolutions, targeted riders and extenders to attach or withhold program changes (SNAP funding, ACA subsidy extensions) and force concessions; opponents argue that excluding measures such as ACA subsidy extensions led to prolonged impasse [6] [7]. Legislative tactics in appropriation fights can function like loopholes — using timing and must‑pass bills to advance policy that might not pass on its own [6] [7].
5. Government proposals to “close” loopholes often reflect ideological priorities
The Treasury’s FY2025 explanations and congressional debates make clear that which loopholes are targeted reflects an administration’s priorities: the FY2025 package proposed closing carried interest and like‑kind exchange preferences and increasing excise rates on stock repurchases — choices consistent with a policy aim to raise revenue and change tax incidence [1]. Conversely, some lawmakers propose sweeping changes (e.g., FairTax Act language in 2025) that would reframe the whole tax base, showing how “close loopholes” rhetoric can be a veneer for larger ideological tax shifts [8].
6. Disagreement over what counts as a loophole — measurement and politics
Nonpartisan analysts point out that the term “loophole” is contested: the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget noted the federal government has more than $1.6 trillion in annual tax expenditures, but emphasized many beneficiaries would not see those as loopholes because they are deliberate policy (retirement savings, charitable giving) rather than unintended escapes [5]. This highlights a central dispute: whether an item is an abuse to be shut down, or a policy choice to be defended.
7. What reporting does not cover / limits of available sources
Available sources concentrate on tax rules, the 2025 shutdown and a handful of fixes (hemp classification, clean energy credit changes) but do not provide a comprehensive inventory of all loopholes across procurement, regulatory waivers, or criminal‑justice exceptions; for many specific sectors, “government used loopholes” claims are not found in current reporting provided here and would require sector‑specific investigation (not found in current reporting).
Bottom line
Loopholes are as much a political and semantic battleground as a legal one: statutes create carve-outs; administrations propose closures that reflect revenue and fairness goals; lawmakers use timing, sunsets and must‑pass vehicles to preserve or eliminate advantages; and independent analysts warn that many so‑called loopholes are intentional policy choices rather than drafting errors [1] [3] [5] [2].