Broadview Six – A federal judge in Chicago dismissed charges against six Operation Midway Blitz protesters after criticizing alleged prosecutorial misconduct before a grand jury. Now their attorneys say they may apply to President Donald Trump’s new $1.776 billion “anti-weapo
Three days after a federal judge in Chicago said she was “incredibly shocked” by what she saw in grand jury transcripts, the fate of six Operation Midway Blitz protesters is being discussed in an entirely different forum: a new taxpayer-funded pot of money created by President Donald Trump.
The case centers on defendants known as the “Broadview Six,” tied to protests surrounding a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent’s vehicle outside an ICE facility in suburban Broadview. Their attorneys say that after the charges were permanently dismissed on May 21. they may apply for relief under Trump’s new $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization fund. ” designed for people targeted through “lawfare” in the courts.
For legal teams watching the program closely, the appeal isn’t about assuming the fund will deliver. It’s about pressure—testing whether the government meant what it promised, and whether those who were caught in political crosswinds can use the mechanism that was built for that exact purpose.
The money was announced by acting Attorney General Todd Blanche as a $1.776 billion fund for people targeted via “lawfare” in the nation’s courts. Blanche said “the machinery of government should never be weaponized against any American.” Three days later, U.S. District Judge April Perry disclosed that an indictment against the Broadview Six stemmed from alleged misconduct by prosecutors—misconduct Perry said left her “incredibly shocked.”.
When charges were dropped on May 21, defense attorney Christopher Parente framed the situation as an example of political targeting. “You want an example of weaponization?” Parente told reporters after the dismissal. “You’ve got prosecutors going into the grand jury targeting political candidates and political figures improperly. These guys should be Exhibit 1.”.
The Broadview defendants are largely involved in Democratic politics in Chicago. That makes it unlikely they were the intended beneficiaries of what critics call a “slush fund” for Trump’s allies. Still. Parente’s argument puts their situation at the heart of a question that now hangs over the program: who gets to benefit. and under what rules.
The fund’s structure could complicate matters for the six protesters. If they accept money from the Trump fund. records show. “must forgo all other relief. including judicial relief.” In other words. applying for compensation could potentially shut the door on other courtroom options that might still exist.
What’s already known about the fund makes the stakes feel immediate. The fund was created May 18 in exchange for Trump and two of his sons dropping their $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of their tax returns. The Trumps also agreed to drop two separate administration claims against the federal government.
Blanche said the fund will be overseen by five commissioners appointed by Blanche, one of whom will be selected in consultation with congressional leadership. Trump will have the authority to fire any of them.
In a statement announcing the fund. Trent McCotter. an official in the Department of Justice. wrote that “The use of government power to target individuals or entities for improper and unlawful political. personal. or ideological reasons should not be tolerated by any Administration.” Blanche told a Senate subcommittee that anyone can apply regardless of political affiliation.
But the government has provided few additional details on how the fund will operate or who exactly will be eligible for compensation.
Michael Caputo—long associated with Trump—submitted what is described as the first known claim. Caputo. who served as a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services during Trump’s first term. argued that he and his family were targeted in the “illegal” Crossfire Hurricane investigation into potential Russian interference in the 2016 election. Caputo is requesting $2.7 million in restitution and reimbursement.
Other prominent allies have signaled interest as well. MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell said he plans to file a claim. Enrique Tarrio, the former Proud Boys leader convicted for his role in the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, said he would seek millions.
Even before anyone can be paid, the fund is being fought in court. A law professor acquitted of assaulting federal agents during an immigration protest and a fired federal prosecutor who helped lead the investigation of the U.S. Capitol riot have sued to block the fund. Two U.S. Capitol police officers who defended the building also sued. calling the fund the “most brazen act of presidential corruption this century.”.
Their lawsuit argues that “President Donald J. Trump has created a $1.776 billion taxpayer-funded slush fund to finance the insurrectionists and paramilitary groups that commit violence in his name.”
For the Broadview Six, the legal story began far from Washington’s political theater and took shape in Chicago-area proceedings during Operation Midway Blitz, the Trump administration’s deportation campaign in the Chicago area last year.
The group was charged after the indictment accused them of joining people who surrounded a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent’s vehicle and pushed, scratched, and otherwise damaged it outside an ICE facility in suburban Broadview.
Along with Kat Abughazaleh. who is identified as a progressive former congressional candidate. those charged included: Oak Park village trustee Brian Straw; then-Cook County Board candidate Catherine “Cat” Sharp; 45th Ward Democratic committeeperson Michael Rabbitt; musician Joselyn Walsh; and Andre Martin. a member of Abughazaleh’s campaign staff.
A grand jury indictment accused the defendants of a conspiracy to impede a federal agent, and each initially faced a maximum sentence of seven years behind bars.
The charges didn’t last the same way for everyone. Charges against Sharp and Walsh were dropped in March. Then, on May 21, Chicago U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros made a rare courtroom appearance and admitted to apparent misconduct by his staff before a grand jury last fall. He announced his office would permanently dismiss all charges against the remaining protesters.
At that point, Perry stepped in with her own account of what went wrong. Perry told lawyers she was “incredibly shocked” by what she saw in a set of grand jury transcripts. “I have never seen the types of prosecutorial behavior before a grand jury that I saw in those transcripts,” Perry said.
Perry also pointed to what she said was the worst part of the federal process: problematic behavior was redacted out of transcripts given to her by the federal government. Defense attorneys called the alleged misconduct “unheard of.”
Parente described his clients’ experience as both exhausting and infuriating. “I think our clients have been dragged through the mud repeatedly by this [U.S. attorney’s] office,” said Parente, Straw’s lawyer. “And knowing … that they were sitting on this the whole time is just infuriating.”
He added that he viewed the new fund as a chance to push the case into the open. “Things are happening in this country every minute. There is a weaponization fund that I think we are now eligible for, and I think people need to see what this DOJ is doing.”
At a hearing Tuesday, defense attorneys said Boutros may have had contact with the grand jury, himself.
Barbara McQuade. a former federal prosecutor and professor at the University of Michigan Law School. said based on Perry’s findings. the protesters appear to qualify for the Anti-Weaponization Fund—but would likely be unsuccessful in receiving actual relief. McQuade said that because the panel members will be selected by Blanche and fireable by Trump. she would not expect their claims to prevail.
McQuade also argued that a denial would still give the Broadview defendants a path to challenge the program. “But denial of a claim would give them standing to file a lawsuit challenging not only the denial of their claims, but the unlawful creation of the entire apparatus.”
For people outside the courtroom, the fund’s political meaning has already hit a nerve. Former FBI Director James Comey said the news of the fund sounded like satire. telling CNN he thought news of the fund was a “piece from ‘The Onion. ’” the satirical newspaper and website. He added. “I’m guessing I’ll be in line. ” and said he hoped he would be “ahead of those who savagely beat police officers and sacked the Capitol.”.
Back in Chicago. the Broadview Six are weighing a decision that comes with a catch: seeking money under a program built to address “lawfare” could also mean relinquishing other relief. In the wake of Perry’s account of alleged prosecutorial misconduct—and the dismissal of charges—what happens next may offer the clearest answer yet to whether the fund is truly indifferent to politics. or whether it simply gives a new name to familiar fights.
Broadview Six Operation Midway Blitz anti-weaponization fund Todd Blanche Donald Trump Todd Blanche commissioners April Perry Andrew Boutros Kat Abughazaleh lawfare grand jury misconduct