Washington Police Officers File Lawsuit to Block Jan. 6 Settlement Fund Payouts

On May 21, 2026, former Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn and Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Police Officer Daniel Hodges filed a lawsuit in federal court to halt any disbursements from the $1.8 billion “Anti‑Weaponization Fund” announced by the Trump Department of Justice. The suit contends that the fund, created as part of a settlement between President Trump and the federal government, is illegal and dangerously could reward individuals who attacked law enforcement during the January 6, 2021 riot.

Under the fund’s terms, “victims of weaponization and lawfare” are eligible for compensation, but the language has sparked concern that the class of claimants could include the hundreds of people convicted of assaulting officers on that day. Officers argue that accepting such payments would undermine the authority of police and could reinforce a sense of impunity among past rioters.

In the legal brief, Hodges and Dunn describe the fund as a “Trojan horse” that implicitly rewards violence. They name Attorney General Todd Blanche, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and President Donald Trump as defendants, alleging that the settlement was formed through a self‑serving lawsuit where Trump sued the federal government and then funded the compensation in the settlement.

The lawsuit also raises the issue of presidential pardons. Many Jan. 6 defendants received pardons that restored their gun rights. Lawyers for the officers claim that if the fund were paid out, those former rioters could amass substantial financial resources that might embolden future disorder.

Congressional leaders and observers have weighed in on the controversy. Attorney General Blanche has not ruled out payments to Jan. 6 defendants, while Vice President John D. Vance has reiterated that no commitments have been made for payouts. The Justice Department’s silence on eligibility has left many uncertain about the scope of the settlement.

Beyond the immediate legal battle, the case highlights broader questions about how the government addresses civil settlements tied to national security incidents. The composition of the fund, its eligibility criteria, and the resulting distribution of taxpayer money will set precedents for similar disputes in the future.

Regardless of the outcome, the lawsuit underscores the stakes involved in determining who may benefit from a settlement rooted in the tumultuous events of January 2021. The officers’ decision to sue reflects the enduring concern that financial rewards could be mistakenly given to those who challenge peaceful governance.