Two officers who fought rioters on the Capitol steps on January 6 are now in court against Donald Trump, challenging a sweeping new fund that they argue amounts to a reward for insurrectionists.
Harry Dunn, a retired Capitol Police officer, and Daniel Hodges of the Metropolitan Police Department filed suit in US District Court in Washington this week, targeting the $1.776 billion "anti-weaponization" fund that Trump created as part of a settlement with the IRS. The fund is designed to compensate allies of the president who Trump believes suffered from prosecutorial overreach.
The lawsuit paints the fund in stark terms. "By its very existence, the Fund encourages those who enacted violence in the President's name to continue to do so," the complaint reads. Dunn and Hodges argue that the fund puts them in greater danger, as they already receive regular death threats stemming from their January 6 actions defending the Capitol.
Hodges was nearly crushed between metal doors during the riot, his struggle captured in video that circulated widely. He was also attacked by a rioter who tried to gouge his eyes. Dunn, who mounted an unsuccessful congressional bid in 2024, has spoken publicly about his struggles with PTSD following the attack.
The lawsuit names Trump directly along with acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent as defendants. In a May 19 Senate hearing, Blanche declined to rule out that January 6 rioters would receive payouts from the fund, saying the decision would rest with the fund's commissioners. Notably, Trump has the power to fire those commissioners at will.
Trump himself weighed in on the prospect when questioned about it on May 18. He defended the possibility that rioters could receive money, describing them as people who were "weaponized" and in some cases "imprisoned wrongly." He cited destroyed lives, unpaid legal fees, and bankruptcies, saying they "turned out to be right."
The fund emerged from a settlement agreement in which Trump and his sons dropped a $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS, a claim that legal observers had widely dismissed as impractical. Critics have called the fund a slush fund designed to reward political allies, while Trump's team frames it as redress for those it claims faced unjust prosecution.
The timing of the lawsuit marks another flashpoint over how January 6 will be remembered and adjudicated in Trump's second term. Dunn and Hodges' legal challenge represents one of the first major court tests of whether such a fund comports with constitutional limits on presidential power.
Author James Rodriguez: "This lawsuit cuts to the heart of a fundamental question: can a president legally create a fund specifically designed to help people convicted of attacking law enforcement? It's a bold legal gambit from two men who have everything to lose if they're wrong."
Comments