Police officers who defended the U.S. Capitol turn the tables on Trump and his "slush fund," suing to block payouts and demanding the illegal fund be dissolved

Officers Daniel Hodges and Harry Dunn (Bloomberg, via Getty Images)

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche on Tuesday told a Senate Appropriations subommittee, in so many words, that all systems are go on Donald Trump's plan to use a "weaponization fund" to compensate his allies who claim they were unlawfully targeted by the Joe Biden administration. In the process, Blanche brushed away concerns from one senator that proceeds from the fund could go to a very real Trump ally who was pardoned and released from prison for his crimes in the Jan. 6 riot, only to be convicted of child molestation and sentenced to life. A second senator voiced concerns about a theoretical ally who, having assaulted police officers on Jan. 6, could receive money as a reward for his actions. Blanche essentially brushed that off, too.

But we learned yesterday, that two officers who helped defend the Capitol have said, "Not so fast, Mr. acting attorney general." Blanche might find that he can't dismiss these officers so readily, according to a report at Associated Press (AP), under the headline "Officers who defended Capitol from rioters sue to block payouts from $1.8B 'anti-weaponization' fund." Reporter Michael Kunzelman writes:

Two police officers who helped defend the U.S. Capitol from attack by a mob of President Donald Trump’s supporters sued on Wednesday to block anyone — including Jan. 6, 2021, rioters — from receiving payouts from a new $1.776 billion settlement fund for people who claim to be victims of politically motivated prosecutions.

The officers’ attorneys filed the federal lawsuit a day after acting Attorney General Todd Blanche defended the fund’s creation during a congressional hearing. Blanche, a personal attorney for Trump before joining the Justice Department, wouldn’t rule out the possibility that rioters who assaulted police on Jan. 6 would be eligible for fund payouts.

By attempting to block anyone -- not just Trump allies -- from receiving payouts, attorneys for the officers appear to be playing a serious game of hardball. They seem to be saying that the "weaponization fund," in its entirety, is an unlawful mechanism that cannot disburse funds to anyone. In fact, the officers are pushing for the fund to have a short lifespan because it is illegal. And that is exactly how the AP article  frames it. Kunzelman writes:

The lawsuit claims the government’s “Anti-Weaponization Fund” is an illegal slush fund that Trump will use to “finance the insurrectionists and paramilitary groups that commit violence in his name.” It describes the fund’s creation as “the most brazen act of presidential corruption this century” and calls for dissolving it.

“No statute authorizes its creation, the settlement on which it is premised is a corrupt sham, and its design violates the Constitution and federal law,” the suit says.

As I often heard while growing up in the Ozark Mountains -- which explains my fandom of the Ozark Mountain Daredevils -- "That's telling 'em how the hog ate the cabbage." The AP report contains this telling paragraph about the sketchy nature of Trump's handiwork:

The fund stems from a settlement of Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax returns. It’s designed to compensate those who believe they were mistreated by prior administrations’ Justice Department. Decisions on payouts will be made by a five-member commission appointed by the attorney general.

Notice that the fund is "designed to compensate those WHO BELIEVE they were mistreated . . . " To borrow another phrase from my Ozarks heritage, "I 'believe" doves will fly out of my butt one day, but that doesn't mean it will actually happen." In short, the factual basis for Trump's lawsuit -- and the resulting settlement that led to formation of the "weaponization fund" -- appears at this time to be virtually non-existent. Consider these words from our post of Tuesday (5/19/26):

Here are some obvious questions this all raises: Who are these Trump allies who claim the Biden DOJ targeted them? No one seems to know. How were they targeted, and what investigations or charges did they face? No one seems to know that, either. Did they present evidence of their innocence to the White House before the lawsuit was filed? You guessed it; No one knows.

These are the kinds of questions that surface when you have a hideously corrupt president who has filled the DOJ with his incompetent loyalists, and we have Republicans in Congress who checked their spines -- and their oversight authority -- at the door. Here is more from AP:

More than 100 police officers were injured during the Capitol riot. Nearly 1,600 people were charged with Jan. 6-related crimes, but Trump used his pardon powers to erase all of those cases in a sweeping act of clemency last year.

The plaintiffs suing Trump over the fund are Metropolitan Police Department officer Daniel Hodges and former U.S. Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn, who is running in Maryland for a seat in Congress. Hodges and Dunn both testified before Congress about their harrowing experiences on Jan. 6. Videos captured a rioter ripping a mask off Hodges as he was pinned against a door during a fight for control of a tunnel entrance.

For the plaintiffs, issues raised by the Trump fund are matters of life and death, but it's not clear that Blanche is taking the process seriously, Kunzelman reports:

The officers claim the fund “encourages those who enacted violence in the President’s name to continue to do so.”

“Dunn and Hodges already face credible threats of death and violence on regular basis; the Fund substantially increases the danger,” the suit alleges.

A commission, whose members will be chosen by Blanche but have not yet been announced, will be charged with deciding who gets paid and how much.

Blanche said in a CNN interview on Wednesday that the board will have to consider the person’s actions, among other factors, when deciding whether to give them money. But the attorney general added: “Whether the commissioners will give that person money — that claimant — it’s up to them.”

Blanche said “it’s abhorrent” to harm law enforcement, but added that “people that hurt police get money all the time” from suing the government. He dismissed backlash to the fund as “fake outrage.” 

Blanche and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent also are named as defendants in the officers’ lawsuit. Spokespeople for the Justice and Treasury departments didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment on the suit.

One of the attorneys for the officers is Brendan Ballou, a former Justice Department prosecutor who handled Jan. 6 cases.

Blanche fails to assure senators that Trump's new "slush fund" won't go in the pocket of a pardoned J6 rioter/child molester or a J6er who beat a cop

This Jan. 6 rioter, pardoned by Trump, now is a convicted  child molester

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, who ramrodded Donald Trump's "weaponization fund" into existence, was the subject of a hearing before the U.S. Senate yesterday. and that proceeding produced proof that the smell of Trump's latest venture -- some are calling it a "slush fund"-- is getting more rancid by the day.  Let's consider two stomach-churning moments from Blanche's testimony:

First, Blanche was given ample opportunity to state that his Department of Justice (DOJ), which will be in charge of disbursing funds, would ensure that money will not go to a pardoned Jan. 6 attacker who now is a convicted child molester. Blanche failed to provide such assurance, per a report at Raw Story:

Attorney General Todd Blanche got an earful from Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) on Tuesday after a Senate Appropriations hearing devolved into a heated confrontation over the Justice Department's controversial anti-weaponization fund — and whether a pardoned child molester could collect from it.

The fireworks started when Van Hollen pressed Blanche on a deeply troubling case: a Trump pardon recipient who allegedly molested two children after receiving clemency and then tried to buy their silence by promising them money he expected to receive from the DOJ fund.

"Can you commit to making the rule so that that person is not eligible for a payout under this fund?" Van Hollen demanded.

Blanche immediately got defensive and never gave Van Hollen a satisfactory answer. To be clear, Van Hollen was not asking about a theoretical matter; this disturbing case is very real. In fact, it is worse than Raw Story makes it sound. It involved a Florida man named Andrew Paul Johnson, who was a Jan. 6 rioter granted a pardon by Trump. 

After being released from prison on that matter, Johnson was accused of molesting two children. Contrary to Raw Story's report, Johnson did not just "allegedly molest two children." A jury convicted him of five criminal charges, and a judge sentenced him to life in prison on March 5, 2026. From a report at NPR:

Just months after President Trump's mass pardons for Jan. 6 rioters freed him from prison, a Florida man repeatedly sexually abused two middle-school aged children.

The man, Andrew Paul Johnson, was sentenced to life in prison, after a Florida jury found him guilty of five criminal charges, including molestation, lewd and lascivious exhibition and transmission of material harmful to a minor.

Police reported that Johnson, 45, tried to keep the children quiet by telling them he would share millions of dollars in restitution money he expected to receive from the Trump administration in connection with his Jan. 6 case.

"He said not to tell anybody," one of Johnson's victims testified. 

Both children later testified that they were too afraid to tell any adults about what they had endured, according to trial records obtained by NPR. 

"We were scared," Johnson's other victim testified. "Like, we didn't realize that this stuff was not okay because we were 12 years old." 

Yes, Johnson tried to bribe his victims, apparently based on the word of a Trump DOJ official who predicted months ago that Capitol rioters would receive millions. And Johnson is just one of the most recent examples of the impunity Trump has helped breed into his followers. Here is more from NPR:

Johnson is one of several pardoned Capitol riot defendants who have been arrested for new crimes since receiving clemency for their actions during the 2021 insurrection. Opponents of Trump's mass pardons say the president's actions have instilled a sense of impunity among members of the mob who stormed the Capitol.

"They think they're untouchable," said Congressman Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat who served on the House select committee that investigated the Jan. 6 attack. Trump's pardons, Raskin told NPR, "definitely have made Americans less safe."

In recent weeks, two former Jan. 6 defendants were arrested in the Washington, D.C. area.

Jake Lang, who was charged with assaulting police with a baseball bat during the riot, was arrested for allegedly threatening a police officer who had also previously protected the Capitol.

"Public execution is the only solution for animals like you," Lang told the officer at a rally for the fifth anniversary of the attack, according to prosecutors and video of the scene. Lang has pleaded not guilty.  

Lang also appeared in court this week in St. Paul, Minn., on a felony charge of damaging property after posting a video of himself knocking down an ice sculpture put up by protesters opposing the federal government's immigration crackdown.

Meanwhile, Bryan Betancur, who already has a lengthy criminal record, was also arrested this week on charges of assault and battery. At the time of the Capitol riot, Betancur was on probation and wearing a court-mandated GPS monitor for a prior burglary conviction. His latest arrest took place after videos emerged that appeared to show him touching women's hair while riding the D.C. Metro. Multiple women have accused Betancur of stalking them and making harassing comments online.  

Last year, after another pardoned Jan. 6 rioter was charged with threatening to kill House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), Trump was asked if his pardons undermined his tough-on-crime policies. 

"No, you have thousands of people that we're dealing with, and, you know, if one goes haywire," Trump said, before pivoting to criticize Democrats. 

As part of the administration's push to rewrite the history of the attack, which injured approximately 140 police officers, an official White House website describes all of the Jan. 6 defendants as "patriotic Americans prosecuted for their presence at the Capitol." Trump himself has referred to the rioters as "great people." 

What about the second stomach-churning moment from Blanche's testimony? Details on that come from a separate Raw Story report under the headline "Todd Blanche forced to admit violent MAGA rioters could get federal payouts":

During his testimony Tuesday before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche made the startling admission that Jan. 6 Capitol rioters who had been convicted of assaulting police officers could be eligible for “multi-million dollar payouts” using taxpayer dollars.

While testifying, Blanche was asked by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) about whether violent insurrectionists who participated in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot would be eligible for payouts from the new fund.

Backed into a corner while under oath, Blanche took the unusual approach -- for a Trumper -- of telling the truth:

“During Police Week, I heard from a number of law enforcement friends who found it appalling that there was the possibility that folks like the Oath Keepers, the Proud Boys who had assaulted Capitol Police officers could receive multi-million dollar payouts from this fund,” Merkley said. “Will you commit that no one who has been convicted of assaulting a police officer will receive a payout from this fund?”

Blanche conceded that while he shared in Merkley’s “concerns,” the fund would ultimately be eligible for anyone who claims to have been unfairly targeted by the Biden administration’s Justice Department.

“Anybody can apply,” Blanche said. “The commissioners [of the fund] will set rules, I'm sure – that's not for me to set, that's for the commissioners. And whether an individual, an Oath Keeper as you just mentioned, applies for compensation... anybody in this country can apply.”

Trump drops lawsuit against the IRS to create a fund that could allow his allies to make money from the Jan. 6 attack -- and one observer calls it "the most brazen act of self-dealing in the history of the presidency"

(Instagram)

The Trump administration yesterday, in a staggering display of lawlessness, dropped its $10-billion lawsuit against the IRS in exchange for formation of a $1.78 billion fund to benefit White House allies who claim they were wrongfully targeted by the Biden administration. Many Americans probably have never heard of a "collusive lawsuit," which essentially is an elaborate ruse where the parties appear to be in a dispute when they actually are colluding to reach an agreement that will benefit them both. If you think that smells fishy, you are using delicate language. The Trump deal with his own Justice Department is a classic case of collusion, and it emits a suffocating stench. 

Here is how the Legal information Institute at Cornell Law School describes such a lawsuit:

A collusive suit (also referred to as a friendly suit) is a lawsuit where the parties are not actually in disagreement but are cooperating to steer the court towards some agreed-upon conclusion. As seen in United States v. Johnson, collusive suits are not allowed in federal court because they are not adversarial.

If that's the case, how was Donald Trump able to file his garbage case and walk away with a favorable result? We will be examining that question and more in upcoming posts, but first let's examine reporting from the Associated Press (AP) that shows the rule of law is battered beyond recognition in Trump's America. How grim is this? One legal and ethics expert in Washington D.C., called it "one of the single most corrupt acts in American history." Here is how AP set the stage for the legal carnage that followed:

The Trump administration announced Monday the creation of a nearly $1.8 billion fund to compensate allies of the Republican president who believe they have been unjustly investigated and prosecuted, an arrangement that Democrats and government watchdogs derided as “corrupt” and unconstitutional.

The “Anti-Weaponization Fund” of $1.776 billion is part of a settlement that resolves President Donald Trump’s lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns. It will allow people who believe they were targeted for prosecution for political purposes, including by the Biden administration Justice Department, to apply for payouts, creating what acting Attorney General Todd Blanche called “a lawful process for victims of lawfare and weaponization to be heard and seek redress.”

Blanche went on to make this astounding statement:

“The machinery of government should never be weaponized against any American, and it is this Department’s intention to make right the wrongs that were previously done while ensuring this never happens again,” Blanche said in a statement that made no mention of how investigations and prosecutions of Trump’s political opponents under his watch have exposed the Justice Department to the same claims of politicized law enforcement that he said he opposed.

Those words must make folks like Letitia James and Adam Schiff guffaw. In short, Trump and Blanche seem to have ears made of such thick tin that they can't hear how preposterous their words sound to others. Blanche is expected to be pressed on the fund when he testifies today on Capitol Hill about the Justice Department budget.

That Trump and his No. 1 toady, Blanche, would invoke the terms "lawfare" and "weaponization" is a case of hypocrisy on amphetamines -- or in Trump's case, Adderall. After all, Trump openly has called for his perceived political opponents to be prosecuted, which led to Blanche indicting former FBI Director James Comey for "arranging seashells by the seashore."

Here are some obvious questions this all raises: Who are these Trump allies who claim the Biden DOJ targeted them? No one seems to know. How were they targeted, and what investigations or charges did they face? No one seems to know that, either. Did they present evidence of their innocence to the White House before the lawsuit was filed? You guessed it; No one knows. We do have this from a report at TIME magazine: 

While the DOJ did not release detailed eligibility criteria, officials said the fund is intended for individuals who believe they were improperly targeted by the federal government on political, personal, or ideological grounds.

Previous reporting by The New York Times and ABC News ahead of the fund’s official announcement indicated that it could be used to compensate Trump allies, including the nearly 1,600 people charged in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, who claim they were unfairly prosecuted.

You read that correctly: Those who attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 could financially gain from their misdeeds, which reportedly included severely beating law-enforcement officers. That's patriotism, Trump style. Try not to reach too quickly for a vomit bag. Let's return to AP's coverage, where we learn Democrats in Congress are struggling to contain their outrage:

Nearly 100 Democrats in the House of Representatives signed onto a legal brief urging a judge to block what they described as an unprecedented resolution that they said would unjustly enrich people close to the president with taxpayer dollars and open the door to meritless claims of political persecution.

The fund would represent not only a highly unorthodox resolution but also a further demonstration of the administration’s eagerness to reward allies of Trump who have long insisted that they have been unjustly investigated and in some cases charged and convicted. Most notably, the president on his first day back in office pardoned or commuted the sentences of supporters who rioted at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. His Justice Department since then has approved payouts to supporters entangled in the Trump-Russia investigation and investigated and prosecuted some of his perceived adversaries.

Trump’s attorneys suggested in their court filing seeking to dismiss the case that the resolution would not be reviewable by a judge. But a group of 93 members of Congress filed a brief teeing up a challenge.

“This case is nothing but a racket designed to take $1.7 billion of taxpayer dollars out of the Treasury and pour it into a huge slush fund for Trump at DOJ to hand out to his private militia of insurrectionists, rioters, and white supremacists, including those who brutally beat police officers on January 6, 2021, and sycophant accomplices to his election stealing schemes,” Rep. Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said in a statement.

I would say Jamie Raskin nicely summed it up. If he didn't, we still have this, from a report at AOL and HuffPost: 

“Of all the corrupt things he has done, this is one of the most depraved,” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a statement. “No president should be able to use the Department of Justice as a personal rewards program for the people who helped him attack our democracy. . . . ”

“President Trump’s action against the federal government he currently leads is a collusive lawsuit that undermines the separation of powers, frustrates Congress’ lawmaking prerogative, and ― unless rightfully dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction ― could siphon billions of taxpayer dollars into the pockets of the President, his family, and his allies,” the Democrats said in their filing. 

And finally, we have this:

“By settling his absurd $10-billion lawsuit against his own administration, Trump and the Justice Department just engaged in the most brazen act of self-dealing in the history of the presidency, and did so quickly in order to avoid the scrutiny of the judicial process,” Donald Sherman, president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), said in a statement. “This is one of the single most corrupt acts in American history.” 

Todd Blanche tells Fox News Sunday the 2020 election was rigged to defeat Donald Trump -- even though Trump himself has admitted he lost to Joe Biden

(Purple Room Politics, Facebook)

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said during an interview on Fox News Sunday the 2020 election was rigged in order to defeat Donald Trump. Blanche, however, promptly started backpedaling on his claim, which might be a good idea considering Trump himself has admitted multiple times that he lost the election to Joe Biden. In fact, we published an article roughly two weeks ago about Trump's admission that he knew he had lost in 2020.

A jointly published article at The Independent and Yahoo! News indicates Blanche did not get that memo. Under the headline "Trump AG Todd Blanche says he can't give 'definitive answer' as to whether the 2020 election was stolen." Josh Marcus writes:

There’s a “ton of evidence” the 2020 presidential election was rigged against President Donald Trump, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said on Sunday, though he soon conceded he couldn’t provide a “definitive answer” if that was actually true or when federal officials would prove it.

“I’m not promising there’s going to be a definitive answer,” Blanche told Sunday Morning Futures on Fox News. “That wouldn’t be fair to you or anybody else, but we are looking at it, and we’re hoping to get one.”

It sounds like Blanche has decided to talk tough about the 2020 election, even though he seems to know he has little, if anything, to back it up. That is a slightly different game from the one Trump is playing: Trying to convince voters, especially any MAGAs who might still be taking him seriously, that an election was stolen from him though he has admitted he lost it. Our conclusion? In slightly different ways, both Blanche and Trump are playing sections of the American electorate for fools. Here is more from Josh Marcus:

Speaking with host Maria Bartiromo, Blanche (who is Trump’s former criminal defense attorney) pointed to the Trump administration’s ongoing investigations in Georgia and Florida but said it was unclear what those probes would yield.

“It takes a lot of work to uncover what happened in 2020,” he said. “It takes a lot of, good-old-fashioned law enforcement, police work, which is what we’re doing, and we have great prosecutors working on it as well, and I assure the American people that as soon as we have something to say for it — whether it’s charges, whether it’s a report, whether it’s the results of an investigation — the American people will learn about what we uncovered.”

What kind of tab will Blanche and his team run up for taxpayers to pay -- on what he seems to admit would have to improve to qualify as a wild goose chase? Blanche doesn't go into that. The Independent explains why, in succinct terms:

To date, no credible evidence has been discovered that proves the 2020 election was rigged and Trump was the rightful winner.

The Trump campaign and its allies repeatedly challenged the results in states he lost to Joe Biden in the aftermath of the 2020 election court, and subsequent court cases, recounts, committee probes, and press investigations have not yielded any proof of the president’s ongoing claims that he won the contest.

Nonetheless, top officials across the administration have echoed the president’s conspiracy theories about the election, and Trump loyalists are driving multiple highly unusual investigations across the country looking for proof six years later that the election was indeed stolen from him.

Are members of the Trump regime convinced that MAGAs are such saps they will believe anything that supports their pre-conceived notion that Dear Leader cannot possibly lose an honest election? Are Trumpers setting the stage for allegations that Democrats used fraud to steal the 2026 and/or 2028 elections? Here is Josh Marcus' roundup of investigative activity driven by the Republican conspiracy train:

In Florida, former Trump lawyer Joseph diGenova has been selected to lead a sprawling federal investigation about the president’s rivals, reportedly premised on the idea that various actions since 2016 constitute a “grand conspiracy” among Democratic officials to keep Republicans out of power.

This, of course, is laughable. Are we to believe Democrats are so bad at executing their grand conspiracy that it has resulted in a Republican takeover of the executive branch, both houses of the legislative branch, with a judicial branch dominated by a conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court? Are Democrats such inept cheaters that their underhandedness has resulted in the GOP controlling every corner of government? That apparently is what Trumpers want their followers to believe? And we've only scratched the surface of the GOP-fueled investigative frenzy, Marcus reports:

The Trump FBI has seized election records in Arizona.

Earlier this year in Georgia, meanwhile, the FBI raided an elections office in the closely fought 2020 battleground state, based on a referral from election denier Kurt Olsen, who worked closely with Trump’s campaign in 2020 to challenge election results as part of a “Stop the Steal” movement.

The warrant that prompted the search itself provided no additional evidence to support a claim of fraud, and it even noted that “many allegations” have already been “disproven.”

“After more than five years, dozens of court cases, and over a year in total control of the federal government, this is all they’ve got?” elections law expert David Becker, director of the Center for Election Innovation & Research, told The Independent at the time of the raid.

They don't have much of anything, and it's nuttier when you understand that the man at the center of it all, Trump himself, has admitted over and over that he lost the 2020 election. Consider this from our post dated May 5, 2025, in which we noted that Trump used the occasion of Rudy Guiliani's hospitalization in an attempt to reignite claims he was cheated in the 2020 election . . . . 

"Our fabulous Rudy Giuliani, a True Warrior, and the Best Mayor in the History of New York City, BY FAR, has been hospitalized, and is in critical condition," Trump wrote in the post. "What a tragedy that he was treated so badly by the Radical Left Lunatics, Democrats ALL — AND HE WAS RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING! They cheated on the Elections, fabricated hundreds of stories, did anything possible to destroy our Nation, and now, look at Rudy. So sad!" 

. . . What about the section I highlighted above as being of particular importance? In it, Trump is claiming Democrats "cheated on the Elections," an apparent reference to the 2020 presidential election that Trump lost to Joe Biden. Here is the key point: Trump now claims, and has been claiming for some time, that he was cheated in that election -- even though he already has admitted that he lost. Here are several examples where Trump said he knew he lost, usually using the term "by a whisker":

* NBC News: Trump admits in podcast appearance that he did not win the election against Joe Biden;

* The Guardian: Trump privately admitted to aides he lost the election, top aides testify;

* Common Cause: Eight times Trump knew he lost; 

* Mother Jones: Trump finally is admitting he lost the 2020 election.

After all of these times admitting that he lost in 2020, why did Trump use the occasion of Rudy Giuliani's hospitalization to change course and claim Democrats won by cheating -- which in his own words, he knows is not true? 

Is Trump counting on voters to forget, or ignore, all the times he admitted that he lost in 2020? That's the only reason I can come up with that Trump would be trying such a charade six years later.