January 6 Defendants Seek Millions via FTCA Claims as Trump Controls $1.8 Billion Judgment Fund
Updated
Updated · The Guardian · Jun 17
January 6 Defendants Seek Millions via FTCA Claims as Trump Controls $1.8 Billion Judgment Fund
1 articles · Updated · The Guardian · Jun 17
Summary
At least nine pardoned January 6 defendants who assaulted police are seeking $1 million each or more from the Trump administration through the Federal Tort Claims Act, with another claimant demanding at least $2.5 million.
The FTCA route gives the Justice Department broad discretion to settle claims from the federal judgment fund, offering a new payout path after bipartisan backlash stalled the administration’s proposed $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization fund.”
Peter Ticktin, a Trump ally’s longtime friend, said he has filed about 400 FTCA claims for January 6 defendants and expects more lawsuits now that the six-month waiting period has expired.
Claimants say they were unfairly prosecuted, coerced into pleas or denied proper treatment, but former DOJ tort official Rupa Bhattacharyya said such malicious-prosecution claims are highly defensible and there is no evidence of wrongdoing in the January 6 cases.
Congressional concern remains bipartisan: Josh Hawley and Nick LaLota opposed taxpayer money going to people who hit police, while Adam Schiff has proposed barring anyone convicted or pardoned over January 6 from receiving FTCA payouts.
How can the law compensate individuals for prosecutions that resulted in their own convictions?
What safeguards prevent the government's judgment fund from being used for political payouts?
$1.8 Billion Anti-Weaponization Fund Blocked: Trump Allies Pivot to FTCA Claims Amid Bipartisan Backlash Over January 6 Compensation
Overview
The report details how the proposed $1.8 billion 'Anti-Weaponization Fund,' intended to address perceived government abuses, was modeled after a previous settlement for Native American farmers but quickly became controversial due to unclear eligibility rules. Senators pushed for explicit exclusions of those convicted of violent crimes or assaulting Capitol police, but officials did not provide clear answers, fueling bipartisan concern. Legal challenges and broad opposition led to a federal judge blocking the fund. With the fund halted, attention has shifted to using the Federal Tort Claims Act as an alternative route for compensation, raising ongoing debates about executive power and accountability.