Jan. 6 Officers Sue Trump Over $1.776 Billion Fund as He Defends Possible Rioter Payouts
Updated
Updated · The Guardian · May 20
Jan. 6 Officers Sue Trump Over $1.776 Billion Fund as He Defends Possible Rioter Payouts
30 articles · Updated · The Guardian · May 20
Harry Dunn and Daniel Hodges filed suit in Washington seeking to stop Trump’s $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization” fund, calling it a taxpayer-funded slush fund that endangers officers targeted since Jan. 6.
The complaint says the fund would reward people who used violence in Trump’s name and increase already credible threats against the two officers, who fought rioters at the Capitol’s west front in 2021.
Todd Blanche and Scott Bessent are also named as defendants because Blanche will appoint the fund’s commissioners, while Trump can fire them at any time.
Trump said on May 18 that Jan. 6 defendants were “weaponized,” wrongly imprisoned in some cases and financially ruined; Blanche and Vice President JD Vance also declined to rule out payouts to rioters.
The fund was created through a deal in which Trump and his sons dropped a $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS, widening scrutiny over whether the program serves political allies rather than neutral claimants.
What legal standard will define 'weaponization' to determine who is eligible for the new $1.8 billion fund?
What constitutional checks limit the creation of executive funds that bypass congressional appropriation authority?
The Anti-Weaponization Fund was created after President Trump agreed to drop administrative claims against the Justice Department, following his request for $230 million to settle damage claims from investigations targeting him. This move led to the closure of a related IRS lawsuit. Soon after, Jan. 6 officers Harry Dunn and Daniel Hodges filed a federal lawsuit to block the fund, raising concerns about its purpose and oversight. Critics, including Rep. Richard Neal, argue that the fund could give Trump undue influence, while government officials say it is too early to judge its impact. The fund’s future now depends on ongoing legal challenges.