Two Jan. 6 officers sued in federal court to block Trump's $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund, the first known challenge to the IRS-settlement-based payout mechanism.
Two law enforcement officers who defended the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, filed suit in federal court in Washington on May 20, challenging the Trump administration's $1.776 billion "Anti-Weaponization Fund," in what appears to be the first known legal challenge to that fund [1]. Former U.S. Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn and Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Police Department officer Daniel Hodges are the named plaintiffs [2]. The officers contend the fund lacks statutory authorization, violates the Constitution's separation of powers, and would direct taxpayer money to Jan. 6 defendants who physically attacked them [1].
The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia [2]. The Anti-Weaponization Fund was created through a settlement of a lawsuit that President Donald Trump brought against the IRS, with the Justice Department drawing on the federal Judgment Fund, a permanent appropriation administered by the Treasury Department that covers court judgments and settlements to which the government is a party [1]. Dunn and Hodges argue that using a presidential self-dealing settlement to capitalize a discretionary payout fund exceeds any authority Congress delegated to the executive branch [2]. On the same day the complaint was filed, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche testified before Congress and declined to rule out making payments from the fund to violent Jan. 6 defendants [3].
The case raises foundational questions about the limits of presidential settlement authority and executive control over the Judgment Fund. If a sitting president can direct the Judgment Fund through a self-negotiated settlement with a federal agency he oversees, the ruling could affect how future administrations structure litigation involving the federal government [1]. Meanwhile, some Jan. 6 defendants have publicly discussed the possibility of receiving payouts from the fund, a dynamic that the plaintiffs argue underscores the constitutional infirmity of the arrangement [3].
The complaint frames the officers as parties with direct standing, given their presence at the Capitol during the attack and the concrete harm they allege they would suffer if their assailants receive government payments [2]. Counsel for the government has not yet entered a formal response. The court will likely address threshold issues, including standing and ripeness, before reaching the merits [1]. A ruling on any preliminary injunction motion, if one is filed, would represent the next significant procedural development in the case.