Jan. 6 rioters face possible DOJ payout via $1.776B

Jan. 6 – A newly announced $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization” fund created from a Trump-linked IRS tax-return lawsuit is drawing fury from Capitol police officers and skepticism from lawmakers, who say the program’s vague eligibility rules could allow people convicted

On Capitol Hill, the anger is not subtle. Two Capitol police officers have already filed suit over a newly announced $1.776 billion Justice Department “anti-weaponization” fund, arguing it is unlawful and violates a constitutional provision they say bars money meant to support an insurrection.

Their fight is landing in the middle of a broader dispute over how independent the Justice Department is—and who, exactly, may benefit when the federal government settles cases tied to President Donald Trump.

The hearing that brought the furor into sharper focus came Tuesday. when lawmakers pressed Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche about whether individuals connected to the January 6. 2021 attack—including people who assaulted Capitol police officers—could be eligible for payments. Blanche’s answer: anyone in the country who believes they are a victim of weaponization can apply. and there are no limits that clearly bar people who committed crimes related to that day.

The fund itself traces back to a lawsuit Donald Trump and his two oldest sons. along with the Trump Organization. filed against the IRS after Trump’s tax returns were leaked. Bagchi said the leak involved a contractor who had been working at the IRS. and that the matter led to criminal prosecution for the leaker. while the lawsuit sought $10 billion—an amount Bagchi described as an enormous sticker price.

The settlement that followed created the $1.776 billion fund. according to Bagchi. after the Justice Department and Trump reached an agreement without what she described as judicial approval. Bagchi said the settlement was negotiated “before there was a major response” that would have required a judge to approve voluntarily dropping the case and letting the settlement move forward.

The Justice Department’s stated purpose. as laid out in the discussion. is tied to the idea of compensating “people who were unjustly targeted.” But the program’s structure is what has lawmakers and critics alarmed: the terms give the Attorney General significant discretion over who decides which applicants qualify.

Under the fund’s terms discussed on the podcast transcript. the Attorney General picks five commissioners who sit on a commission that decides who gets access to the funds. One commissioner is chosen in consultation with Congress, and the President can remove any commissioner at will. A replacement would then be picked using the same process as the dismissed person. Bagchi described the arrangement as one in which personnel effectively becomes policy.

Bagchi also pointed out that the standard for determining who is “unjustly targeted” or a “victim of weaponization” is not clear. and that the fund is not restricted to people prosecuted under the Biden administration. Blanche testified that eligibility is not limited by partisan lines and that the fund is written as a “nonpartisan arrangement.” Even so. Bagchi said the mechanism—discretion housed in commissioners selected by the Attorney General and removable by the President—creates room for political priorities to shape outcomes.

The lawmakers’ concern sharpened when Blanche was asked directly about people accused or convicted for violence on January 6. Senator Chris Van Hollen asked whether individuals who assaulted Capitol Hill police officers would be eligible.

Blanche replied that, as the setup “makes plain,” anyone who believes they are a victim of weaponization is eligible to apply.

Van Hollen pressed for a simple answer about eligibility. and Blanche did not exclude those accused of or convicted of January 6 crimes. Bagchi said Blanche emphasized there are no limits in place barring people who committed crimes on January 6 from receiving money. Bagchi added that many of those people are ones President Trump has said he views as victims of weaponization. pointing to “more than 1. 500” people who were criminally charged for crimes related to the January 6. 2021 attack. noting that many were convicted—not just charged.

That possibility is part of what has Capitol police officers seeing a personal stake in a fund they say will ultimately embolden harassment and threats.

Bagchi said the officers’ lawsuit argues the weaponization fund is unlawful because it was not authorized and violates the constitutional provision they say prohibits providing funds to support an insurrection against the United States.

She also described a potential procedural hurdle: legal standing. Courts generally require plaintiffs to show a specific type of injury. The officers argue they have been harmed by a wave of harassment and even threats directed at them for speaking out about January 6. and they argue the new fund will fuel more of it. Bagchi said whether the case will be heard at all could depend on whether the plaintiffs can clear that standing requirement.

Beyond the courts, lawmakers and legal observers are also focused on conflicts and ethics.

When asked about whether political donors could be recipients, Bagchi said Blanche did not clearly rule them out. She described potential conflict-of-interest concerns and the broader ethical concern that the President could reward allies. Bagchi raised an argument that some people could frame as quid pro quo: that the President might be benefiting personally or indirectly through people who have benefited him politically.

Another legal issue cited in the discussion was the Domestic Emoluments Clause. described as a constitutional limit intended to prevent Presidents from receiving benefits beyond their official salary. Bagchi said critics argue the fund could violate that rule. even if Blanche has said the President and his family will not personally be receiving money. The concern, Bagchi said, is that personal benefits could still arise if close associates or political allies receive payments.

The political storm has also reached into the executive branch.

Bagchi said one prominent resignation drew attention: Brian Morrissey, the general counsel for the Treasury Department. He was Senate-confirmed just seven months earlier, Bagchi said, and he resigned around the time the fund was announced. Morrissey’s role. as described in the discussion. matters because Treasury would have to create the fund account and certify the $1.776 billion into it.

Bagchi said Morrissey did not say in public that his resignation was tied to the fund. She also said his resignation letter reportedly thanked the President. Still, the timing—especially given how recently he had been confirmed—prompted speculation.

The hearing also fed into a larger debate about whether the Justice Department is being pulled closer to the White House.

Bagchi described the fund as another example of growing concern about the independence of the Justice Department from the White House. She tied that concern to earlier moments. including when the President called for certain people to be prosecuted on social media. naming former FBI Director James Comey. New York Attorney General Letitia James. and California Democratic Senator Adam Schiff. Bagchi said Schiff had not yet faced charges but was under investigation. and that Comey and James have faced charges—some dismissed—while the Justice Department continued efforts to bring new charges.

In the transcript, Bagchi contrasted this with past safeguards she said existed under Joe Biden’s Justice Department. She said Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed special counsel roles. including Jack Smith. which she described as providing prosecutors greater independence. She said Smith brought two prosecutions against the President and also handled other investigations. including matters involving Joe Biden’s son. Bagchi said a separate special counsel decided not to bring a case against Joe Biden and issued a report.

Bagchi said that, in her view, those safeguards helped keep charging decisions from being directly driven by the President’s own preferences. She argued that those protections appear to be eroding under the current administration.

Her remarks extended beyond the fund itself, describing a Justice Department under strain: she said the department has “lost thousands of attorneys” under the current administration, after starting with thousands in the first place.

For Capitol police officers and for those watching whether “anti-weaponization” becomes a politically managed tool. the question is immediate and personal. If applications can be decided through commissioners selected and removable by the President. and if eligibility is tied to a broadly defined concept of weaponization rather than a narrowly defined category of victims. then people convicted for January 6 violence could become candidates.

And for now, the only clear part of the system is the one that makes critics’ case sting: it is taxpayer money.

Bagchi said the funds come from the judgment fund. a pool used to allow the government to engage in legal settlements. and that some of the process is “pretty normal” while this arrangement is “pretty abnormal.” In her telling. the central moral dispute is straightforward: if people who committed crimes that many Americans think should have been prosecuted receive money out of a DOJ settlement. it ultimately comes from the American wallet.

The fund’s future—and whether the courts will even get a chance to weigh in—remains uncertain. But the structure that critics are challenging is already clear enough to set off a legal and political clash: a large. appropriated sum; a discretionary commission; and a standard that. as discussed. is not clearly defined.

DOJ fund anti-weaponization judgment fund January 6 defendants Todd Blanche Capitol police lawsuit Brian Morrissey IRS tax return leak Domestic Emoluments Clause legal standing Justice Department independence