Trump ‘Weaponisation’ Fund Faces Lawsuit From Capitol Riot Officers

Two police officers who defended the United States Capitol during the January 6 attack are suing the Trump administration over a newly created $1.776bn “anti-weaponisation” fund, arguing it could end up financially rewarding the very people who assaulted them.

The lawsuit, filed Wednesday by former US Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn and Metropolitan Police officer Daniel Hodges, describes the fund as “the most brazen act of presidential corruption this century”.

At the centre of the dispute is a settlement reached earlier this week between President Donald Trump and the Department of Justice over a lawsuit tied to the leak of his tax returns. The agreement created a massive compensation fund for alleged victims of politically motivated government actions — a category Trump has repeatedly suggested includes many participants in the January 6, 2021 attack on Congress.

Dunn and Hodges argue the fund should be dissolved before any money is distributed.

“If allowed to begin making payments, the Fund will directly finance the violent operations of rioters, paramilitaries, and their supporters who threatened Plaintiffs’ lives that day, and continue to do so,” the lawsuit states.

The legal challenge reopens one of the defining fault lines of Trump’s second presidency: how his administration is handling the legacy of January 6 and the broader claim that his supporters were unfairly targeted by federal institutions.

Trump has long framed prosecutions tied to the Capitol attack as politically motivated. On his first day back in office, he issued sweeping pardons to nearly all participants in the riot and commuted the sentences of 14 others.

Now critics say the administration has gone a step further by creating a fund that could potentially compensate some of those same individuals using taxpayer money.

Dunn and Hodges both say they suffered physical and psychological trauma during the attack. Hodges recalled being “nearly crushed by rioters” against a Capitol door while hearing threats that protesters would “kill him with his own gun”. Dunn, who later retired from the Capitol Police, has spoken publicly for years about the lasting impact of the violence and harassment that followed.

Their lawsuit argues the creation of the fund sends a dangerous signal at a moment when threats against law enforcement officers involved in defending the Capitol remain persistent.

“The Fund’s mere existence sends a clear and chilling message: those who enact violence in President Trump’s name will not just avoid punishment, they will be rewarded with riches,” the complaint says.

The controversy stems from Trump’s $10bn lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over leaked tax information published by outlets including The New York Times and ProPublica between 2018 and 2020. Critics had already questioned the legitimacy of the case because Trump, as president, effectively controls both the IRS and the Justice Department.

The judge overseeing the matter reportedly raised concerns about whether the parties were “sufficiently adverse”, given that the defendants ultimately fell under Trump’s authority.

Rather than going to trial, the case ended in a settlement announced Monday. Under the agreement, $1.776bn was drawn from the federal Judgment Fund — normally used to settle lawsuits against the government — and placed into the new “anti-weaponisation” fund.

The settlement also stated that the government would bear “no liability whatsoever for the protection or safeguarding of those funds” from fraud. Management of the fund was handed to a five-member body appointed by the attorney general and removable by the president.

The backlash intensified after an addendum published Tuesday granted Trump, his family and their businesses sweeping immunity from tax-related claims tied to the disputed returns.