Two Capitol Police officers who bled on January 6th are now suing the federal government to stop a nearly $1.8 billion fund that could write checks to the people who attacked them.

Story Snapshot

• Officers Harry Dunn and Daniel Hodges filed suit against the Treasury Department to block the Department of Justice’s $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization” fund
• Republican senators including Thom Tillis, Bill Cassidy, Susan Collins, and John Thune broke with the White House to publicly oppose the fund
• Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick called the fund “a waste of taxpayer dollars” and vowed not a single dime should go to those who assaulted law enforcement
• Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio and other January 6 rioters reportedly expressed enthusiasm for the fund, viewing it as financially beneficial to them

Officers Who Fought the Mob Are Now Fighting the Payout

Harry Dunn and Daniel Hodges were not bystanders on January 6, 2021. They were in the thick of it, defending the Capitol against a mob that used flagpoles, chemical spray, and fists. Now, years later, they have filed a lawsuit against Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and the Treasury Department, arguing that the Department of Justice’s $1.776 billion fund is flatly illegal. Their position is not political theater. It is a legal challenge rooted in the claim that the executive branch does not have the authority to create and fund this kind of compensation program without congressional appropriation.

The fund is officially labeled an “anti-weaponization” fund, framed by the administration as redress for individuals financially harmed by what it describes as politically motivated prosecutions tied to January 6. That framing gives the program a coherent policy rationale on its face. The problem is that no one outside the administration has seen the actual eligibility rules, the authorizing memo, or the legal opinion justifying the $1.8 billion price tag. When the governing document is invisible, the worst-case interpretation fills the vacuum, and the worst case here is damning enough to unite cops, moderate Republicans, and constitutional lawyers.

Senate Republicans Call It a Payout Pot for Punks

Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina did not choose diplomatic language. He called the fund “stupid on stilts” and a “payout pot for punks,” which is remarkable plain-speak from a sitting Republican senator directed at a sitting Republican president. Tillis is not alone. Senators Bill Cassidy and Susan Collins expressed opposition, and Senate Majority Leader John Thune said publicly he is “not a fan of the fund” and is uncertain how the administration intends to use it. Collins reportedly left a meeting with Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche with her mind unchanged.

Representative Brian Fitzpatrick put the moral case in the starkest terms available: the fund sends a message that a person can breach the Capitol, destroy property, assault police officers, and potentially receive a government check for the trouble. His conclusion was unambiguous. Not a dime should go to those who physically assaulted law enforcement. That is not a fringe position. It is the common-sense reaction most Americans would have if they understood what this fund could do, and it is being voiced by members of the president’s own party.

The Rioters Are Paying Attention, and That Tells You Something

When Enrique Tarrio, the convicted Proud Boys leader, and other January 6 defendants publicly expressed enthusiasm for the fund because they see it as financially beneficial, that reaction should register as a signal. Supporters of a program reveal its true character by how they respond to it. If the eligibility rules genuinely excluded convicted offenders who committed violent acts, the people most enthusiastic about the fund would be wrongly charged defendants with clean records, not the leaders of organized groups that stormed the Capitol. The administration has not produced documentation that forecloses the Tarrio scenario.

‘Stupid On Stilts’: GOP Senator Destroys Trump’s 'Anti-Weaponization' Fund.
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) called the fund "the definition of tyranny."https://t.co/VpTkgujgNo

— Resist hateful GOP policies (@hateGOP) May 22, 2026

The deeper constitutional question is where the money comes from and who authorized it. Fitzpatrick asked that directly and received no satisfying public answer. Congressional appropriation is not a bureaucratic formality. It is the mechanism the founders built to ensure the executive branch cannot unilaterally decide how public money is spent. A $1.8 billion fund created by executive action, without a publicly available legal basis, without a published eligibility framework, and without a disbursement audit trail, is not a policy disagreement. It is a stress test on the separation of powers. The officers suing to stop it understand that better than most, because they are the ones who paid the original price.

Sources:

[1] Web – Backlash to Trump’s $1.8B Settlement Fund Delays GOP …

[2] Web – GOP Sen. Thom Tillis calls DOJ “anti-weaponization” fund a “payout …