Capitol Police officers sue over Trump-era fund that could pay Jan. 6 rioters

Capitol Police officers sue over Trump-era fund that could pay Jan. 6 rioters

Two law-enforcement officers who defended the U.S. Capitol during the Jan. 6, 2021 attack have filed suit to stop any payouts from a new $1.776 billion settlement fund that they say could be used to reward the rioters who assaulted police.

The AP report says the plaintiffs are Metropolitan Police Department officer Daniel Hodges and former U.S. Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn. Their lawsuit argues that the so-called Anti-Weaponization Fund is unlawful, calling it a “slush fund” and asking for it to be dissolved. The suit was filed a day after acting Attorney General Todd Blanche defended the fund’s creation in congressional testimony.

The dispute is rooted in a settlement linked to Donald Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax returns. Under the plan, a five-member commission appointed by the attorney general would decide who gets paid and how much. The AP report says Blanche would not rule out the possibility that Jan. 6 rioters who assaulted police could qualify for compensation, though he later said the board would consider each claimant’s actions.

That possibility is what triggered the officers’ legal challenge. The suit says the fund is designed for people who believe they were politically targeted by prior administrations, but it also says the way it is structured violates the Constitution and federal law. The officers contend it could “finance the insurrectionists and paramilitary groups that commit violence in his name,” according to the excerpt.

The case also revives the political and moral arguments around accountability for the Capitol attack. More than 100 police officers were injured during the riot, and nearly 1,600 people were charged with Jan. 6-related crimes before Trump later issued a sweeping pardon. The plaintiffs say the fund would increase the danger to them because they already face threats as public figures tied to the attack.

Blanche, in his first congressional testimony since taking charge at the Justice Department, defended the fund and dismissed criticism as “fake outrage.” He said it was “abhorrent” to harm law enforcement, but also argued that people who hurt police sometimes receive money from lawsuits. That exchange is the heart of the controversy: one side sees restitution for political targeting, the other sees a mechanism that could be turned toward people who attacked democracy itself.

The lawsuit is therefore not just about one fund. It is about who gets to define victimhood, who decides eligibility, and whether a settlement created out of one legal fight can be used in a way that offends the officers who risked their lives on the Capitol steps. The case now places the Justice and Treasury departments, and the political choices behind the fund, under direct legal scrutiny.

The legal challenge also sets up a clash over symbolism. To the officers, any structure that could send money to Jan. 6 rioters is an insult to those who were injured defending Congress. To the administration, the fund is framed as a corrective for people who believe they were politically targeted. That tension is why the lawsuit is likely to resonate beyond the specific commission or the named defendants. It asks whether the government can create a compensation pool that appears to soften the consequences of political violence.