DC officers sue to block $1.8bn Trump fund over corruption fears

Two Washington DC police officers have initiated legal proceedings in the US District Court for the District of Columbia to dissolve a $1.776 billion ‘anti-weaponisation’ fund established by the Trump administration. Officers Harry Dunn and Daniel Hodges, both of whom sustained injuries during the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol, argue the fund is likely to be used to compensate rioters and paramilitaries. They contend this potential use constitutes presidential corruption and sends a chilling message that encourages further violence against them.

The fund was created as part of a settlement between President Trump and the Justice Department, following Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS over leaked tax returns. The officers, who filed their lawsuit on Wednesday, describe the fund as the most brazen act of presidential corruption this century. They seek to prevent taxpayer money from being disbursed to participants in the attack, which saw thousands of Trump supporters descend on Congress to disrupt the certification of the 2020 presidential election.

Dunn, a retired US Capitol Police officer, and Hodges, who remains with the Metropolitan Police Department, allege they were nearly crushed by rioters and faced death threats during the assault. The lawsuit argues that allowing the fund to make payments would directly finance the violent operations of those who threatened their lives. It notes that the Trump administration has refused to rule out paying January 6 participants from the fund, despite the officers' ongoing fear for their safety.

The settlement stipulates that the US government has no liability whatsoever for the protection or safeguarding of these funds from fraud. The money, drawn from the Judgement Fund, will be managed by five people appointed by the attorney general, subject to the president’s removal. An addendum to the settlement, published on Tuesday, discharges Trump and his family from legal claims related to his tax returns.

On the first day of his second term, Trump issued a blanket pardon to nearly all January 6 participants and commuted the sentences of 14 others. The officers argue that the fund’s existence signals that those who enact violence in President Trump’s name will be rewarded with riches. They claim this substantially increases the risk of vigilante violence they face on a near-daily basis and encourages harassers to escalate their threats.

The lawsuit challenges the legal basis of the underlying IRS case, which the officers describe as frivolous due to a lack of adversity between the plaintiff and the defendants, both of which fall under Trump’s executive control. Dunn and Hodges argue that the anti-weaponisation fund’s extraordinary sum has no plausible basis in the strength of Trump’s claims and fear it will amount to the public financing of paramilitary organizations if not promptly dissolved.