DOJ puts weaponization fund on ice—Johnson still seeks payday

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche says the $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” to pay President Donald Trump’s allies is “not moving forward,” but legal experts say a payout for Jan. 6 rioters could still happen through settlements—an outcome Andrew Paul

When Andrew Paul Johnson walks the halls of Jackson Correctional Institution in Malone, Florida, the fight isn’t only about the sentence he’s serving. It’s also about the money he says he deserves.

In a message sent through a prison system last week—just before the administration put the “Anti-Weaponization Fund” on ice—Johnson praised President Donald Trump for not “forgot his people” and urged that the government reimburse people he believes were wrongfully targeted after the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot.

His comments land amid a legal and political scramble over whether Jan. 6 defendants who received Trump pardons can turn grievances into cash payments—even as the Justice Department moves to stop a major, pre-announced payout mechanism.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told the story in stark bureaucratic terms: the $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” meant to pay Trump’s allies “is not moving forward.” But the president has continued signaling interest in compensating people tied to the Jan. 6 attack. In an appearance on “Pod Force One With Miranda Divine” this week. Trump argued that the government should pay people who stormed the U.S. Capitol. saying they were wrongfully targeted and describing pardoned defendants as individuals who “lost their lives over nonsense” after the FBI told them “go in. go in.” He also said he gave them pardons and called it “crooked government. ” saying people “should be reimbursed.”.

The fund’s pause did not slow claims. Even before Blanche’s testimony, the announcement triggered a wave of demands from Jan. 6 defendants and pardon recipients alleging mistreatment and unfair prosecutions. They are asking for cash payouts ranging from a few million dollars to sums in the tens of millions.

DOJ lawyers were scheduled to appear in court next week and, crucially, would have to tell a judge whether they actually intend to kill the fund. The Justice Department did not respond to HuffPost’s request for comment.

But Johnson is one of the clearest examples of how the pressure could shift away from the fund and toward something else: settlements.

Johnson’s own path is a collision of two stories Americans have been forced to hold together for years—the Capitol riot and a later, separate series of crimes.

He pleaded guilty in 2024 to four counts for his role in the Jan. 6 riot, including violent entry and disorderly conduct. After an unsuccessful attempt to withdraw that plea, he received a pardon from Trump. In August 2025—months after that release from prison—he was arrested in Florida on child sexual abuse charges. He was convicted in February this year and sentenced to life in prison.

From inside prison, Johnson framed Trump’s decision as a kind of loyalty test. “Its truly a blessing to hear Mr. Trump has not forgot his people,” he wrote. He tied that praise to the president’s comments on “Pod Force One.”

Even after Blanche testified that the weaponization fund was not moving forward, Johnson said he would still pursue compensation. “Its nice to see Trump is so in tune with his base,” he said.

His view is personal and direct. Johnson told HuffPost he was interested in seeking compensation for his Jan. 6 prosecution even with his criminal record since then. His Florida convictions include two counts of lewd or lascivious exhibition; one count of lewd or lascivious molestation against a victim under 12; another count against a victim under 16; and one count of transmission of material harmful to minors to a minor by electronic device.

A Florida detective. in a July 2025 probable cause affidavit. alleged that Johnson promised part of an expected $10 million government payout to one of his victims in his eventual will—citing that it was because he had been pardoned for storming the Capitol. Johnson denied the allegations and told HuffPost he was innocent and “confident in my appeal.” He said he believed the detective’s affidavit “injected his own bias and belief into my warrant.”.

The office that prosecuted Johnson’s child abuse case. led by State Attorney Bill Gladson. declined HuffPost’s request for comment because the appeal is pending before the District Courts of Appeal. Public information officer Brittney Carman said it would be unethical for the office to comment while the appeal process is ongoing.

Johnson did not take the same tack when it came to his Jan. 6 conduct. Prosecutors said he climbed through a broken window to enter the Capitol. encouraged others to join him. and “rioted for over four hours.” Johnson was unapologetic. “Those who were ‘violent’ believed we were experiencing treason, and the implementation of Communism in America,” he wrote. “They had good intent, and stood FOR our gov. on J6, not against it. So yes, I believe even the ‘violent’ ones should be paid as well. Violent. non violent. window breakers. bat swingers. desk smashers. and yes. even those with new charges. no matter the nature. all of them deserve compensation. They were fulfilling their duty on Jan 6.”.

He wrote separately that Jan. 6 defendants “lived looking over our shoulders or in prison, all because we responded to tyranny the way our Declaration of Independence requires us to as the ‘governed.’”

His case has already become political. Johnson’s situation came up in two separate heated exchanges between Blanche and Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) during a congressional hearing last month. After reading the detective’s claim about the payout to one of his victims that Johnson allegedly discussed. Van Hollen pushed Blanche to commit to making Johnson ineligible for a payout. Blanche dodged and would make no such commitment.

And there is another fact pattern that complicates any promise that pardons automatically protect people from consequences. The child sexual abuse for which Johnson was convicted in Florida took place both before and after he spent time in federal prison for his role in the Jan. 6 riot. Lawfare characterized that Trump’s clemency order on the first day of his second term may have “actively facilitated criminal conduct.”.

For legal experts trying to map the money trail, the Johnson case points to a core tension: malicious prosecution claims are hard, but settlements are often easier—and settlements can pay out without a final, court-driven victory.

Molly Nixon, a senior fellow in executive power at the Cato Institute, said winning a malicious prosecution case—an allegation many Jan. 6 rioters are expected to pursue—is “no easy feat.” A successful malicious prosecution claim requires a high bar in terms of proof.

But Nixon said that the “high bar” shifts if defendants can reach a settlement first. “There is a high bar for malicious prosecution in terms of winning a case,” she said. “But in the case of getting a settlement from the government, it’s whatever the government really wants it to be.”

A separate attorney familiar with Jan. 6 litigation—who asked to remain anonymous out of concern for professional repercussions—described the difficulty of proving malicious prosecution. “You have to show there was no basis for prosecution. no factual or legal basis whatsoever and they may have to prove [the prosecution] was willful. ” the attorney said.

The attorney added that a conviction tends to establish that “there was some legal factual or basis for the prosecution,” and that pardons do not automatically erase that.

Even so. Henry “Enrique” Tarrio—who was found guilty of seditious conspiracy in connection to the Capitol attack—has signaled that he sees the settlement path as the practical route. He told reporters that Jan. 6 defendants could “settle the tort claims and lawsuits” for “a lot more money in compensation.”.

Tarrio said he believed he was owed “somewhere in the mid-tens of millions” and he has been among the first to say he planned to file a complaint when Trump announced the new fund. Tarrio told PBS it would be easier to get paid out through the fund than through the court system.

He and other former co-defendants from the sedition trial had already sued the federal government and FBI agents last June, alleging malicious prosecution and unfair treatment. In that lawsuit, they are demanding $100 million in damages.

Nixon said the DOJ Justice Manual contains “guidelines and limitations” on when and how the department can settle a case. but those rules rely heavily on the attorney general’s discretion. Payments. she said. come from the Judgment Fund. a pool of taxpayer-funded cash used when settlements are made for lawsuits against the government.

If the department was already willing to pay out under the Anti-Weaponization Fund, Nixon said, there is “very little to suggest they would stop making the same or similar payout” to someone making a separate settlement claim in court.

She also described how settlements can be pursued before a complaint is even filed. A Jan. 6 defendant could draft a lawsuit alleging the government wronged them and send that draft copy to the Justice Department while formally requesting that the department reach a settlement before a complaint is filed. Nixon said the payment would still come from the Judgment Fund, which Congress appropriated.

Nixon criticized the oversight and pointed out that the Judgment Fund has little oversight and has not featured a cap on the amount someone can receive since 1977.

Those requests. she said. could also be strengthened by a public statement or official decree from the government or the president declaring that Jan. 6 rioters were wronged. Trump has made such statements repeatedly. including on his first day back in office. when he pardoned and commuted sentences for all the rioters.

But there is still uncertainty about how the Justice Department would handle a sudden surge of civil claims. The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, D.C., did not immediately return a request for comment.

The point for Johnson—and for others watching for a pathway to money—is that even if the Anti-Weaponization Fund is stopped. settlement authority remains. The Justice Department currently has discretion over settlement agreements and subsequent payments from the Judgment Fund. Nixon said Congress’s choice in 1977 to get rid of caps on settlements and leave discretion to the Justice Department may have been an “original sin.”.

She argued that even strict process can’t protect the government from people who do not respect the spirit of law: “There’s always a tradeoff in how Congress crafts authority it’s giving to the executive branch; between imposing burdensome bureaucratic process requirements and relying on the norms or principles and character of officers and employees who are exercising that authority. ” Nixon said. “But at the end of the day. all the process in the world can’t protect the government against people who don’t respect the spirit of law.”.

For now, the fund is “not moving forward.” For Johnson, though, the fight for compensation is still very much alive—his message from prison insisting Trump has not forgotten his people, and his stated interest in pursuing payment even as his life sentence for child sexual abuse stands on appeal.

That is where the story has landed: in the gap between a paused political plan and a legal system that may still be able to translate grievances into cash.

United States politics DOJ Todd Blanche Anti-Weaponization Fund Jan. 6 Trump pardons settlements Judgment Fund malicious prosecution Andrew Paul Johnson Jackson Correctional Institution child sexual abuse Henry Tarrio