Command Palette

Search for a command to run...

Discover

Jan. 6 Officers Sue to Block Trump’s $1.8B DOJ ‘Anti-Weaponization Fund’

Jan. 6 Officers Sue to Block Trump’s $1.8B DOJ ‘Anti-Weaponization Fund’
View gallery

Two police officers who defended the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday seeking to block President Donald Trump’s new “Anti‑Weaponization Fund,” a nearly $1.8 billion Justice Department program they call an illegal taxpayer‑funded “slush fund” for allies and rioters.cbsnews +1

The suit, brought by former Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn and D.C. Metropolitan Police Officer Daniel Hodges in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, is the first legal challenge to the fund, which was created last week as part of a settlement resolving Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS over leaked tax records.politico +1 The complaint names Trump, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent as defendants and asks a judge to halt any payments and dissolve the program.cbsnews +1

How the $1.8 Billion Fund Works — and Why Officers Say It Breaks the Law

Under the settlement announced May 18, the Justice Department agreed to establish a $1.776 billion “Anti‑Weaponization Fund” to compensate people who claim they were victims of politically motivated investigations and prosecutions, with awards to be decided by a five‑member commission appointed by the attorney general and paid from the Treasury’s Judgment Fund.apnews +1 The president and his family are barred from receiving money, but eligibility is otherwise broad; Blanche told Congress that “anybody” who believes they were targeted by “weaponization” could apply, and he declined to rule out payments to Jan. 6 defendants.kezi +1

Dunn and Hodges argue the arrangement violates both federal law and the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which prohibits paying debts or obligations “incurred in aid of insurrection.”washingtonpost Their complaint contends no statute authorizes using the Judgment Fund for what they describe as a “corrupt sham” settlement and that the program is designed to funnel taxpayer money to “the nearly 1,600 people charged with attacking the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021” and other pro‑Trump groups.cbsnews +1 The fund’s existence, they say, “sends a clear and chilling message” that those who commit political violence in the president’s name will be rewarded, increasing the risk of harassment and threats against them and other officers.apnews +1

DOJ’s Defense and the Coming Legal Showdown

Justice Department officials have insisted the settlement and fund fall squarely within the executive branch’s authority to resolve claims against the United States, noting that no claims have yet been processed and no payments made.washingtonpost +1 Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward told lawmakers it was “way, way, way too early” to judge the program before the commission is formed or a single award is issued, while Blanche emphasized that the fund is “not limited in any way” to January 6 or to Republicans.washingtonpost +1

Still, the deal has drawn bipartisan concern on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers have questioned whether the administration effectively committed Congress to a multibillion‑dollar compensation scheme without legislation and whether individuals convicted of assaulting police could ultimately benefit.apnews +1 Legal scholars say the case could turn on whether the court agrees the Judgment Fund is being stretched beyond its statutory purpose and on whether the officers can show they are personally harmed enough to have standing to sue — a threshold the administration is expected to challenge.washingtonpost +1

The Bigger Picture

The lawsuit thrusts the long‑running fight over “weaponization” of government into a new arena, pitting officers injured defending the Capitol against a president who says his allies were victims of partisan lawfare. However the court rules on the officers’ request to freeze the program, the case is likely to shape how far presidents can go in using settlement authority and taxpayer money to compensate their own political base — and whether the Constitution’s Civil War‑era ban on subsidizing insurrection still has teeth in 21st‑century Washington.washingtonpost +1