On May 20, 2026, Harry Dunn, a former U.S. Capitol Police officer, and Daniel Hodges, a current Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police officer, both of whom defended the Capitol on January 6, 2021, filed a federal lawsuit in Washington, D.C. to block the Trump administration's $1.776 billion 'Anti-Weaponization Fund.' The fund was created two days earlier as the settlement of Trump's $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS.
The 29-page complaint argues the fund will be used to pay people who participated in the January 6 attack and to finance paramilitary organizations. From the suit: 'If allowed to begin making payments, the fund will directly finance the violent operations of rioters, paramilitaries, and their supporters who threatened plaintiffs' lives that day, and continue to do so.' And: 'Militias like the Proud Boys will use money from the fund to arm and equip themselves. The fund will grant their past acts of violence legal imprimatur.'
The legal theory is novel. The plaintiffs invoke Section 4 of the 14th Amendment, which bars the government from paying debts 'incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States.' They also argue the administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act and that the Attorney General's required certification that the settlement payment is 'in the interest of the United States' was not met. From the complaint: 'The payment of $1.776 billion into the Anti-Weaponization Fund to settle Trump v. IRS was patently not in the interest of the United States. Rather, it was a misappropriation of taxpayer funds orchestrated by the President to reward his allies and the rioters who committed violence in his name.'
The suit landed one day after Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, testifying to the Senate Appropriations Committee, declined to rule out payouts to people who assaulted police on January 6. Sen. Jeff Merkley asked why people convicted of violent acts against officers should be eligible; Blanche: 'My feelings don't matter, senator. I will definitely encourage the commissioners to take everything into account.' Vice President JD Vance separately declined to rule out such payments: 'We do have people who were accused of attacking law enforcement officers. That doesn't mean that we're going to completely ignore some of the claims that they're going to make.' DOJ spokesperson Natalie Baldassarre defended the fund as redress for 'the brazen weaponization of federal resources by previous administrations.'
Update (October 27, 2026): The administration abandoned the fund in early June, the BBC reported. On July 13 Judge Kathleen Williams, who presided over Trump's IRS suit, found that the parties to the settlement that created the fund were never adverse (“It is risible to suggest that there was ever adverseness between the Parties”), sanctioned two of Trump's lawyers and barred the parties from citing the agreement as evidence of a settlement reached in that case. She did not void the settlement, and on September 29 the Eleventh Circuit noted that she had not yet ruled on a request to reopen the case (see The DOJ Announces a $1.776 Billion 'Anti-Weaponization Fund' to Compensate Trump's Allies, Settling the President's $10 Billion Lawsuit Against the IRS He Controls). The status of the officers' own suit was not available when this was written.