In a surprising turn of events, two former Capitol Police officers have filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, accusing it of creating a $1.8 billion “slush fund” to reward those who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. The suit, filed on Wednesday, claims that the so‑called Anti‑Weaponization Fund is the most blatant example of presidential corruption in the 21st century and that the money will be used to enrich the very individuals who carried out the violent attack.
Background of the Jan. 6 Insurrection
On the morning of January 6, 2021, a mob of supporters of then‑President Donald Trump breached the Capitol building, forcing the evacuation of lawmakers and the temporary suspension of the certification of the Electoral College results. The riot left more than 150 Capitol Police officers injured or attacked, and the event has since become a defining moment in American politics.
In the aftermath, the Trump administration has issued nearly 1,600 presidential pardons and commutations, many of which are linked to the insurrection. The legal and political fallout has been extensive, with investigations, congressional hearings, and a growing debate over accountability for those who participated in the attack.
The Alleged Anti‑Weaponization Fund
According to the lawsuit, the Trump administration established an “Anti‑Weaponization Fund” that would allocate $1.8 billion to support individuals who took part in the Capitol breach. The plaintiffs argue that the fund’s purpose is to provide financial incentives for future violent actions, effectively rewarding the very people who carried out the insurrection.
The officers, D.C. Metropolitan Police Officer Daniel Hodges and former U.S. Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn, claim that the fund is a “slush fund” that will be used to line the pockets of Jan. 6 rioters. They allege that the money will be distributed through a network of shell companies and other opaque channels, making it difficult to trace and preventing proper oversight.
In the suit, Hodges and Dunn describe the fund as “the most brazen act of presidential corruption this century.” They argue that the creation of the fund encourages insurrectionists to continue acting violently in Trump’s name, effectively turning the administration into a patron of domestic terrorism.
Legal Grounds of the Lawsuit
The lawsuit is grounded in several federal statutes that prohibit the use of public funds for illicit purposes. The plaintiffs allege that the Trump administration violated the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition on the use of public funds for private benefit and the Federal Corrupt Practices Act, which forbids the use of public money to influence political actions.
Additionally, the suit claims that the fund violates the Anti‑Corruption Act by providing financial incentives to individuals who engaged in violent wrongdoing. The plaintiffs argue that the fund’s existence constitutes a direct violation of federal law and that the administration’s actions amount to a conspiracy to facilitate and reward criminal activity.
The lawsuit also names Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and former Attorney General Pam Bondi as defendants. These officials are alleged to have played key roles in authorizing and overseeing the fund, thereby making them liable for the alleged corruption.
Defendants and Their Roles
- Todd Blanche – Acting Attorney General, responsible for enforcing federal law and overseeing the Department of Justice’s investigations into the Jan. 6 insurrection.
- Scott Bessent – Treasury Secretary, tasked with managing federal finances and ensuring the proper allocation of public funds.
- Pam Bondi – Former Attorney General, who served as a key legal advisor to the Trump administration during the period in question.
- Donald Trump – Former President, whose
InfluencerBlogger
