**
Two police officers who faced violent confrontations during the January 6 insurrection at the US Capitol have initiated legal action against former President Donald Trump, targeting his newly proposed $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization” fund. This initiative has been branded by critics as a thinly veiled slush fund intended to benefit those aligned with Trump, including individuals involved in the Capitol riots.
Legal Action Against the Former President
Retired Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn and Metropolitan Police Department officer Daniel Hodges filed their lawsuit in the US District Court for Washington, DC, on Tuesday. They accuse Trump of engaging in an unprecedented act of presidential corruption by establishing a fund that purportedly compensates individuals he claims are victims of prosecutorial overreach.
The fund’s creation coincided with the withdrawal of a $10 billion lawsuit Trump and his sons had previously filed against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Critics of the fund argue that it serves to financially reward insurrectionists and others who perpetrated violence under Trump’s banner.
Personal Accounts of Violence
Both officers were on duty during the tumultuous events of January 6, 2021, when a mob attempted to disrupt the certification of the 2020 presidential election results. In a harrowing incident, Hodges faced an assault attempt that involved a rioter trying to gouge his eyes. He was also captured on video struggling to prevent the surge of rioters breaching the Capitol doors. Dunn, who previously ran for Congress in 2024, has spoken about his ongoing battle with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) stemming from the violent clash.
The lawsuit asserts that the existence of the fund emboldens those who commit violence in Trump’s name, exacerbating the threats already faced by the officers. “Dunn and Hodges already contend with credible death threats regularly,” the complaint states. “The fund significantly heightens the peril they face.”
Responses from Key Officials
The lawsuit includes Todd Blanche, the acting Attorney General, and Scott Bessent, the Treasury Secretary, as defendants. During a Senate hearing held on May 19, Blanche did not dismiss the possibility that funds could be distributed to January 6 rioters, stating the decision lies with commissioners he will appoint—who can also be dismissed by Trump.
In a press conference on May 18, Trump defended the fund, arguing that many individuals involved in the riots have faced undue legal repercussions. “They’ve been weaponized. They’ve been in some cases imprisoned wrongly. They’ve paid legal fees that they didn’t have. They’ve gone bankrupt. Their lives have been destroyed,” he remarked, asserting that these individuals “turned out to be right.”
Additionally, Senator JD Vance, during a White House briefing, echoed this sentiment, suggesting that anyone—including Hunter Biden—could apply for compensation from the fund.
Why it Matters
This lawsuit not only highlights the ongoing divisions within American society but also raises critical questions about the accountability of political leaders and the implications of their financial decisions. As the legal proceedings unfold, they may further illuminate the relationship between political power and public safety, particularly concerning those who risk their lives to uphold law and order. With the potential for funds to flow to individuals involved in the January 6 violence, this case could set a significant precedent, challenging the boundaries of governmental support for citizens embroiled in politically charged unrest.
