Steadvar — News without the noise

Privacy · Terms · About

© 2026 Steadvar. All rights reserved.

Police Officers Sue to Block Payouts from $1.8 Billion 'Anti-Weaponization' Fund

PoliticsCrime1d ago
Share

Similar Articles

Democrats Move to Block $1.8 Billion Fund for Alleged Political Prosecution Victims

Politics2d ago

IRS Settles Trump Tax Leak Suit, Creates $1.8 Billion Fund and Grants Audit Immunity

Politics9h ago

Protesters Sue DHS and FBI to Halt DNA Collection at Peaceful Demonstrations

CrimePolitics5/7/2026

Tennessee Officials Settle Lawsuit Over Arrest for Facebook Meme

CrimeSociety2d ago

DOJ 'Weaponization' Probe Focus Shifts After Key Staff Departures

Politics5/14/2026

Two police officers who defended the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, have filed a federal lawsuit to block payouts from a new $1.776 billion settlement fund. The fund, created from the settlement of a lawsuit President Trump filed against the IRS, is intended to compensate individuals who believe they were politically targeted by prior administrations. The officers' lawsuit seeks to prevent anyone, including January 6 rioters, from receiving money from the fund.

Facts First

  • Two Capitol police officers filed a lawsuit to block payouts from a new $1.776 billion 'Anti-Weaponization Fund'.
  • The fund was created from a settlement of President Trump's $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS over leaked tax returns.
  • A five-member commission appointed by the attorney general will decide who receives money from the fund.
  • The lawsuit names Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent as defendants.
  • More than 100 police officers were injured during the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot.

What Happened

On Wednesday, Metropolitan Police Department officer Daniel Hodges and former U.S. Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn filed a federal lawsuit to block payouts from a new $1.776 billion settlement fund named the 'Anti-Weaponization Fund'. The fund originates from a settlement regarding Donald Trump's $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) concerning the leak of his tax returns. The fund is intended to compensate individuals who believe they were mistreated by the Justice Department of prior administrations. Decisions regarding payouts will be made by a five-member commission appointed by the attorney general. The lawsuit names Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent as defendants.

Why this Matters to You

This lawsuit directly challenges the use of taxpayer money, as the $1.776 billion for the fund is drawn from the federal judgment fund, which pays for court judgments and settlements against the government. The outcome could determine whether individuals convicted of crimes, including assaulting police officers during the January 6 riot, receive compensation from public funds. The fund's creation and the associated lawsuit highlight ongoing legal and political debates over the Justice Department's independence and the use of presidential powers.

What's Next

The lawsuit filed by officers Hodges and Dunn invokes the 14th Amendment's prohibition on the U.S. paying 'any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection'. A judge will now consider the legal challenge. Separately, Democratic lawmakers are planning legislative action; Rep. Jamie Raskin is introducing legislation to block the fund, and Senate Democrats are considering amendments to ban payments to individuals who participated in the January 6 attack. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has stated the fund's commission will consider a person's actions when deciding on payouts, but the commissioners have not yet been announced.

Perspectives

“
Democratic Lawmakers argue that the fund is a 'corrupt sham' and an unconstitutional 'slush fund' designed to reward political allies, insurrectionists, and January 6 rioters with taxpayer money.
“
The Trump Administration maintains that the fund is a 'lawful process' intended to provide redress for individuals who were 'horribly treated' or 'wrongly targeted' by the previous administration's weaponized justice system.
“
Legal and Judicial Experts express concern regarding the 'glaring conflict of interest' inherent in the president overseeing a fund that compensates people in his own litigation, while also questioning the legal standing and transparency of the settlement.
“
Republican Critics have voiced discomfort with the settlement, with some labeling it a 'slush fund' and others warning that it creates an 'absurd' risk of compensating January 6 rioters.
“
Victims of Violence argue that the fund is a direct threat to their safety because it effectively finances the very groups and individuals who have committed acts of violence against them.
“
Policy Analysts suggest the fund exploits a 'huge loophole' in the Judgment Fund system, noting that while it may be bad policy, it is a consequence of how Congress structured the system.