Two Washington, D.C., police officers have sued President Donald Trump’s administration over its decision to establish a $1.776 billion fund to compensate victims of alleged government “use of weapons.”
In a lawsuit filed Wednesday, board members Harry Dunn and Daniel Hodges call the fund “the most brazen act of presidential corruption in this century.”
Recommended stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
They aim to dissolve the fund to prevent taxpayer funds from being disbursed to participants in the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
That day, thousands of Trump supporters stormed Congress in an apparent attempt to block the certification of the 2020 presidential election, which Trump lost.
“If payments are allowed to begin, the Fund will directly fund and continue to fund the violent actions of the mob, militia, and their supporters that threatened Plaintiff’s life that day,” the lawsuit alleges.
Mr. Dunn and Mr. Hodges said they were injured during the attack. Dunn was a member of the U.S. Capitol Police and has since retired.
Hodges, who remains with the Metropolitan Police Department, recalled in his lawsuit that he crashed into the doors of the Capitol and was “nearly crushed by the mob.” Another officer heard a protester threatening to “kill me with my gun.” Officers feared they would not survive the attack.
Their lawsuit alleges that President Trump has indicated he intends to compensate the Jan. 6 rioters, saying they were “unfairly treated” by the justice system.
He claims the newly created fund will allow him to do so with little oversight.
Already, on the first day of his second term, Trump granted full pardons to nearly all of the attack participants and commuted the sentences of 14 others.
According to the complaint, Dunn and Hodges continue to be the subject of violent threats and harassment as a result of their efforts to protect the Capitol. They argue that compensating the attackers would encourage further violence.
“The mere existence of the fund sends a clear and chilling message that those who commit violence in President Trump’s name will not only escape impunity, but will also be enriched,” the complaint states.
“That message itself would significantly increase the already substantial risk of vigilante violence that Dan and Hodges face on an almost daily basis. And it would further increase the risk for those who would harass or send death threats to Dan and Hodges.”
Agreement to end controversial lawsuit
The Trump administration has so far not ruled out disbursing money from its “anti-weaponization” fund to the January 6 participants.
The funding pool was established this week as part of a settlement between President Trump and the Justice Department under his leadership.
President Trump announced in January that he would sue the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which is also under his control, for leaking his tax returns to media outlets including the New York Times and ProPublica.
Trump sought $10 billion in damages for harm to himself, his adult sons, and his business interests. But critics were quick to point out that the lawsuit represented a conflict of interest for the sitting president, who has significant influence over both the Internal Revenue Service and the Justice Department.
Even Judge Kathleen Williams, who presided over the case, seemed skeptical that both sides were “sufficiently disadvantaged,” noting that the defendant was “following his instructions.”
It also raised serious questions about whether Mr. Trump filed his lawsuit within the statute of limitations and whether the IRS was really responsible for the leaks committed by government contractor Charles Littlejohn.
However, Trump’s lawsuit never proceeded to trial. The lawsuit ended after a settlement was announced on Monday.
As part of the settlement, the Trump administration directed the Justice Department to withdraw $1.776 billion from a judgment fund used to settle cases against the government.
That amount was then set aside in an “anti-weaponization” fund, a large amount of which appears to be premised on Trump’s assertion that he and his supporters are entitled to reparations for mistreatment under the previous administration.
The proposed settlement (PDF) states that the U.S. government “assumes no responsibility for the protection or security of these funds” from fraud.
It also explains that the fund will be managed by five people appointed by the attorney general and subject to removal by the president.
On Tuesday, an addendum to the settlement (PDF) was released that permanently releases Trump and his family from legal claims related to his tax returns.
object to the settlement
The lawsuit filed by Mr. Dunn and Mr. Hodges is expected to be one of several legal challenges to the terms of the settlement.
Already, the self-dealing allegations have sparked widespread protests, particularly among Democrats.
Hodges and Dunn allege in their complaint that the “exorbitant amount” of the anti-weaponization fund has “no convincing basis” for President Trump’s claims. They also claim the lawsuit against the IRS should never have been filed.
“That lawsuit was frivolous,” they say in their complaint. “There was no adversity in Trump v. IRS because Trump, as a sitting president, was the plaintiff and had direct control over all defendants.”
“Mr. Trump has largely acknowledged that there was no adversity,” the complaint added. “Earlier this year, he said he needed to ‘make peace with myself’ about this.”
Ultimately, Dunn and Hodges said they feared that if the Anti-Weaponization Fund was not quickly disbanded, it would become “public funding for U.S. paramilitary groups.”
Their lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
