Justice Dept drops fund; rioters still seek federal payouts

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said the Justice Department will not move forward with an “Anti-Weaponization Fund.” But the administration’s earlier actions and the ongoing Federal Tort Claims Act process mean Jan. 6 defendants and families can still pur

When acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said the Justice Department was “not moving forward” with its “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” the headline looked like a stop sign. But the courtroom fight didn’t end. The money question didn’t either.

For people tied to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, the federal government’s willingness to handle claims through the Federal Tort Claims Act—and the Trump administration’s prior settlement behavior—means payouts remain on the table even without the new program.

Thomas Smith. who spent two years in prison after being convicted of assaulting police and other charges. has filed for damages. “Mark my words: We will be compensated for the way we were treated and the injustices we dealt with. ” Smith told HuffPost. Smith is one of hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants who filed administrative claims for damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

The idea of government payback for Capitol riot defendants long predates Blanche’s Tuesday announcement. Last month. the Justice Department unveiled what it described as a “settlement” with President Donald Trump after Trump sued his own government this year in his personal capacity over a past leak of his tax information. That settlement created a payout fund and freed the president and his family from all past tax liabilities. It also landed with force in Washington: the settlement was not approved by a judge. and it prompted fierce blowback even from some of Trump’s allies on Capitol Hill.

The agreement included a key carve-out: “a claimant who already has a claim pending in court or administrative proceedings may be eligible for relief.” In other words, people who were already pursuing cases wouldn’t be left waiting for a brand-new program.

Even before the anti-weaponization fight reached its current pause, the administration agreed to pay the family of rioter Ashli Babbitt nearly $5 million over her killing by a Capitol Police officer as she breached an inner door inside the Capitol.

Peter Ticktin, a Florida attorney who represents hundreds of people convicted of Jan. 6-related crimes. said his clients were disappointed by the White House’s backtrack on supporting the fund—because they viewed it as potentially more efficient than litigation. “I’d like to see the fund come about again — I think it needs to — but in the meantime. we’re just going to go the old-fashioned route. ” Ticktin told HuffPost.

Ticktin’s pressure isn’t theoretical. Last week, he filed a complaint on behalf of nine Jan. 6 clients. The complaint argues each has “suffered and continues to suffer damage in excess of $1 million. ” citing lost wages. medical expenses. “severe emotional distress” and “reputational harm.” The lawsuit maintains the Jan. 6 riot was stirred up by “agitators” who have been protected by former Attorney General Merrick Garland and former FBI Director Christopher Wray.

One plaintiff named in Ticktin’s filing, John George Todd III—a Marine veteran—was sentenced to five years in prison after being convicted of injuring a police officer’s hand during the riot. Todd was later pardoned by Trump.

Ticktin said he will keep filing. He told HuffPost he would continue to bring a series of lawsuits and would seek no less than $1 million for each of his clients.

The timing has also created a new kind of tension inside the administration and among allies in Congress. After a social media post by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) called for a new weaponization fund based on tort claims. Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward. the third-highest-ranking official in the Justice Department. suggested Tuesday that the department would do what Graham wanted. “We’re on it,” Woodward wrote in a post that has since been deleted.

The Justice Department did not respond to requests for comment.

Mark McCloskey, an attorney who has been filing claims on behalf of Jan. 6 defendants, said the $1.8 billion fund might not have been enough money anyway. McCloskey previously advocated for a special commission like the one Blanche planned to set up. but he also filed Federal Tort Claims Act cases that could proceed on their own. “We’ve always hoped that there would be a voluntary payment system,” McCloskey told HuffPost. “All those cases will move forward if we need to.”.

The administration’s retreat from the slush fund came in part because of strong pushback from Republicans in Congress. Some lawmakers worried payouts—especially if they were tied to a broad, executive-branch mechanism—would be an ugly political fight.

Still, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said a case-by-case approach using evidence and a judge was the better path than the “made-up system” he associated with Trump’s faux settlement. “That’s the way to go. on a case-by-case basis with a judge sifting through the evidence. not some executive branch thing that could be manipulated. ” Cornyn told HuffPost.

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) pushed for a more blunt solution: Congress should pass a law banning Trump’s slush fund. Cassidy said he had no problem with people seeking damages through the Federal Tort Claims Act—he pointed to the Babbitt family’s effort. “We need to trust our institutions and not just kind of tilt it so we get the outcome we want. We should be institution-focused, not outcome-focused,” Cassidy told HuffPost.

Even as attorneys press for compensation and lawmakers debate how it should happen, the underlying numbers remain part of the dispute. More than 1,500 people were charged with crimes for their actions that day, and the Justice Department has said more than 140 police officers suffered injuries.

For Smith, that scale is part of what he says is being lost in the public fight over payout mechanisms. Smith said his original representation was with McCloskey, but that he is now pursuing his claim with Ticktin. “I understand people’s concern with somebody getting paid if they were legitimately assaulting a police officer. but the narrative is going to shift at some point. ” he said. “People are going to see why people acted the way they did that day. They’re going to see the police using brutality against people that was not necessary.”.

The anti-weaponization label may be paused inside the Justice Department. But for hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants already inside the administrative-claims pipeline. and for attorneys who are filing lawsuits district-by-district. the question that matters most—who gets paid. and under what process—has moved from one program to the broader federal system itself.

Jan. 6 Anti-Weaponization Fund Todd Blanche Federal Tort Claims Act Capitol riot defendants Ashli Babbitt settlement Trump tax leak settlement Federal payouts Lindsey Graham Stanley Woodward John Cornyn Bill Cassidy Peter Ticktin Mark McCloskey Thomas Smith