Officers injured during Jan. 6 attack sue to stop Trump administration’s compensation fund

Two police officers who defended the U.S. Capitol during the January 6 attack filed a federal lawsuit on May 20 seeking to block the Trump administration’s controversial new $1.7 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund.” Former Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn and Metropolitan Police officer Daniel Hodges argue the fund is unconstitutional and illegally redirects taxpayer money toward individuals claiming they were politically targeted by the federal government. The lawsuit was filed in the Washington, D.C., federal court only days after the Department of Justice formally announced the creation of the fund. Critics argue the initiative could eventually provide financial compensation to pardoned January 6 rioters and other political allies of President Donald Trump.

“By creating the Anti-Weaponization Fund, funding it, and authorizing claim criteria that will allow it to make payments to, among others, Proud Boys and January 6 rioters, Defendants have inflicted concrete and cognizable harms on Plaintiffs Dunn and Hodges”

The fund was created as part of a settlement agreement between the federal government and Donald Trump over the leak of Trump’s tax returns several years ago. Earlier this year, Trump filed a $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service and Treasury Department, accusing the agencies of unlawfully allowing confidential tax information to be leaked to the media. Rather than pursuing the lawsuit further, the Justice Department negotiated a settlement that included the creation of a $1.776 billion compensation fund intended for people who claim they were victims of government “weaponization” or politically motivated investigations. Trump and his family reportedly received no direct financial payout from the agreement itself.

The lawsuit filed by Dunn and Hodges argues the fund creates a direct threat to officers who defended the Capitol during the January 6 riot. Their attorneys claim the government is effectively rewarding individuals who participated in political violence by potentially allowing them to apply for taxpayer-funded compensation. Neither the White House nor Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has ruled out the possibility that pardoned January 6 defendants could receive payments through the program. The lawsuit argues that the fund sends a dangerous political message while increasing risks toward officers who continue publicly speaking about the Capitol attack and the violence they experienced that day.

The Justice Department announced the creation of the fund on May 18, describing it as a mechanism designed to compensate Americans harmed by politically motivated prosecutions and government misconduct. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche stated that the initiative would create “a systematic process” for reviewing claims from individuals who believe they were unfairly targeted by federal law enforcement or prosecutors. Blanche has argued that the program would apply broadly regardless of political affiliation. However, the administration has released very few details regarding eligibility requirements, payment caps or oversight procedures. A five-member commission appointed by the Justice Department will reportedly determine who qualifies for compensation.

The controversy surrounding the fund has quickly spread beyond Democrats, with several Republicans also expressing concern about the program's legality and optics. Some conservative lawmakers questioned why taxpayer money should be used to compensate individuals involved in politically sensitive legal cases. Others raised concerns regarding transparency as the Justice Department has not publicly disclosed how compensation decisions will be reviewed or monitored. Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Senator Rand Paul were among Republicans who publicly questioned the necessity of the initiative. Critics have increasingly described the fund as a political slush fund designed to reward Trump allies and reinforce claims that previous investigations into Trump were illegitimate.

Despite the backlash, the Trump administration appears determined to move forward with the initiative. Lawyers representing clients claiming political persecution have reportedly already begun preparing applications for potential compensation once eligibility guidelines are finalized. Meanwhile, Dunn and Hodges continue seeking an emergency injunction that would freeze any transfer of money from the Treasury Department to the Justice Department while the case proceeds through federal court. The outcome of the lawsuit may ultimately determine not only the future of the fund itself, but also the limits of executive power during one of the most politically polarized periods in modern American history.

On January 6, 2021, thousands of supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump stormed the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C. in an attempt to disrupt the certification of Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential election victory. Roughly 2,000 rioters breached police lines and entered the Capitol building, forcing lawmakers into lockdown for several hours. More than 140 police officers were injured during the attack, including officers from the Capitol Police and Metropolitan Police Departments. Federal investigators eventually charged over 1,500 individuals in connection with the riot, making it one of the largest criminal investigations in American history. Donald Trump pardoned more than 1,500 of those rioters after he regained office in 2025