Two police officers who were on duty during the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot are now asking a court to shut down President Donald Trump’s $1.8 billion compensation fund for those charged in connection with that day’s events, claiming the money will put their lives at risk.
The lawsuit, filed Wednesday, names Trump along with acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. The officers argue the fund is both unconstitutional and illegal, and they’re demanding the courts intervene before any payments go out.
At the heart of the complaint is the “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” established by the Trump administration to compensate individuals the White House believes were treated unfairly by the Biden-era Justice Department. The fund is intended to benefit those among the roughly 1,200 people who faced federal charges stemming from the Capitol breach, when protesters stormed the building as lawmakers attempted to certify Democrat Joe Biden’s presidential victory over Trump.
Trump has since pardoned everyone federally charged in connection with January 6. Charges against the defendants ranged from unlawful entry to sedition and assaulting police officers.
The two plaintiffs, Harry Dunn and Daniel Hodges, say they defended the Capitol during the protests and believe the fund will directly endanger their safety. Their complaint alleges the compensation program will encourage violence against them and other officers, essentially bankrolling what they describe as “rioters, paramilitaries, and their supporters.”
Hodges currently serves as a Metropolitan Police Department officer. Dunn is a former U.S. Capitol Police officer who has since entered politics. He’s running as a Democratic candidate in the House primary for Maryland’s 5th Congressional District, according to the Associated Press.
The lawsuit raises significant constitutional questions about executive authority and the use of federal funds. The plaintiffs are challenging whether the administration has the legal power to establish such a compensation program without congressional approval, and whether directing taxpayer dollars to pardoned individuals crosses legal boundaries.
For the officers involved, this isn’t just about policy disagreements. They frame the lawsuit as a matter of personal survival. By compensating those convicted or charged with crimes including assault on police, the fund sends a dangerous message, they argue.
