Capitol police sue over Trump’s $1.776 billion fund

Two officers who defended the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 are asking a federal court to block the Trump administration’s new $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” arguing it could route taxpayer money to people involved in the assault. They say the program was

For Harry Dunn and Daniel Hodges, the day they still describe in vivid terms never really ended. They spent it defending the U.S. Capitol during the Jan. 6 attack. and they have spent the years since trying to make sense of what came afterward—through investigations. prosecutions. and. for some. pardons.

Now they are taking their fight back into court.

Dunn, a former Capitol Police officer, and Hodges, a D.C. police officer. filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday seeking to stop the Trump administration’s new $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund.” The suit argues the program could ultimately steer taxpayer money toward people involved in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. No payments have been made from the fund.

The officers named President Donald Trump, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent as defendants. Their filing is the first legal challenge to the program.

Dunn and Hodges are not contesting a process they say is already under way. They are challenging how the program was built in the first place.

In the lawsuit. the administration’s creation of the fund is framed as an overreach—done without congressional approval and tied to federal settlement money for a purpose Congress never authorized. The suit argues the administration established the fund through an agreement linked to Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS over disclosure of his tax records. Under that arrangement. Trump agreed to drop the IRS case. while the administration moved forward with creating a fund that is described as nearly $1.8 billion.

The administration says the program is designed to compensate people who believe they were unfairly targeted by the justice system. The officers say that broad promise does not match what the structure of the program could allow.

The Washington Post reported that the money would come from the federal Judgment Fund and be distributed through a five-member commission selected by Blanche.

The complaint uses unusually direct language, calling the arrangement “the most brazen act of presidential corruption this century.” It also accuses the administration of establishing “a taxpayer-funded slush fund” for people who committed violence in Trump’s name.

Jan. 6 remains central to the dispute—even as administration officials insist otherwise.

Officials have repeatedly said the fund is not limited to Jan. 6 defendants and is open to anyone who believes they were unfairly prosecuted or investigated. Dunn and Hodges argue the practical result could be narrower than that public explanation.

Their lawsuit points to reporting and public statements about the fund and argues that people charged in connection with the Capitol attack could seek payments through the process.

More than 1,500 people faced charges tied to the Jan. 6 riot. Trump later issued nearly 1,600 pardons and commutations connected to those cases.

This week’s Capitol Hill testimony added another layer of urgency to the officers’ concerns.

During testimony on Capitol Hill, Blanche declined to rule out payments to people convicted of violent assaults on police officers during the attack. “As was made plain yesterday, anybody in this country is eligible to apply if they believe they were a victim of weaponization,” Blanche said.

For Dunn and Hodges, that refusal lands in the middle of their broader legal argument: constitutional limits on who can benefit from certain kinds of federal payments when the purpose is connected to insurrection.

The officers’ suit argues the fund violates constitutional restrictions related to insurrection and rebellion. They point to the 14th Amendment. which states that “neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States.”.

The officers were among the group who later testified publicly about the violence they experienced during the Capitol attack. More than 140 law enforcement officers were injured during the riot.

The Justice Department defended the administration’s position Wednesday, arguing previous administrations improperly used federal resources against political opponents.

The sequence of events at the heart of the lawsuit is stark: the administration’s insistence that the Anti-Weaponization Fund is open to anyone alleging “weaponization. ” a funding mechanism drawn from the federal Judgment Fund. a commission of five members selected by Blanche. and a decision by Blanche not to rule out payments to people convicted of assaulting police during Jan. 6.

The case now asks a federal court to decide whether the program’s creation and design are consistent with the law—before any money goes out. For Dunn and Hodges, the point is not just what the fund claims it will do. It’s what it could end up doing once applications start flowing.

Capitol Police lawsuit Anti-Weaponization Fund Harry Dunn Daniel Hodges Todd Blanche Scott Bessent federal Judgment Fund Jan. 6 14th Amendment insurrection and rebellion Trump IRS lawsuit tax record disclosure