Jan 6 officers sue to block $1.7B anti-weaponization fund over legality concerns
WASHINGTON, DC: Two law enforcement officers who defended the US Capitol during the January 6, 2021, riot have filed a lawsuit seeking to block a proposed $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization fund,” calling it an illegal effort that could benefit rioters and groups involved in political violence.
Former Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn and Metropolitan Police Department officer Daniel Hodges filed the suit on Wednesday, arguing that the fund amounts to a “taxpayer-funded slush fund” designed to support individuals and organizations tied to the Capitol attack.
Officers challenge legality of fund
The lawsuit claims the proposed settlement underpinning the fund is unconstitutional and violates federal law.
According to the filing, the initiative would channel public money toward groups and individuals who participated in or supported the Jan 6 riot, when supporters of President Donald Trump stormed the Capitol in an effort to overturn the 2020 election results.
The officers said the proposed fund would “directly finance the violent operations of rioters, paramilitaries, and their supporters who threatened Plaintiffs’ lives that day, and continue to do so.”
Concerns over groups that support violence
The legal challenge reflects ongoing tensions surrounding accountability for the Jan 6 attack and the broader political movement associated with it.
Dunn and Hodges became nationally recognized figures after publicly recounting their experiences defending lawmakers and the Capitol building during the riot.
Brendan Ballou, a former federal prosecutor involved in Jan 6 cases and now representing the officers, sharply criticized the proposed fund in a statement.
“The Anti-Weaponization Fund is stunningly, blindingly, illegal,” Ballou said. “If allowed to continue, it will fund insurrectionists, militias, and paramilitaries that are loyal to the President but unaccountable to the rule of law.”
Ballou added that the lawsuit was aimed at protecting both public safety and democratic institutions from groups accused of engaging in political violence.
Fallout from Jan 6 continues
The lawsuit marks the latest legal and political battle stemming from the Capitol riot, which continues to influence national debates over executive power and accountability.
More than four years after the attack, former officers and prosecutors remain vocal critics of attempts they believe could legitimize or financially support those involved in the events of Jan 6.
Critics of the proposed fund argue that public money should not be directed toward individuals or organizations accused of undermining democratic institutions.
Supporters, however, have framed anti-weaponization efforts as necessary to challenge what they describe as politically motivated prosecutions and investigations.
The case is expected to intensify scrutiny over how funds connected to Jan 6-related legal settlements are structured and whether they comply with constitutional and federal legal standards.
