Two police officers who defended the U.S. Capitol on January 6 filed a lawsuit Wednesday to block rioters from receiving money from a new federal settlement fund.
Officers Daniel Hodges and Harry Dunn filed the suit against the Trump administration's $1.77 billion anti-weaponization fund, calling it an illegal slush fund and a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act.
Hodges is known for being caught on video nearly crushed in a doorway during the Capitol attack — widely regarded as one of the most violent moments of that day. Dunn has been vocal since the January 6 insurrection, testifying before Congress and speaking at press conferences about what happened.
RELATED STORY | Officers who defended Capitol from rioters sue to block payouts from $1.8B ‘anti-weaponization’ fund
"Our attorney reached out to us, me and Harry, and said that we would have a case to try and stop it and I'm willing to do whatever I can to make sure that these people don't get that money, these ill-gotten gains from the American taxpayers," Hodges said.
"So I just said yeah, absolutely if I can help I'll do it," Hodges said.
The lawsuit focuses specifically on the more than 1,600 people who have faced criminal charges for their actions on January 6, 2021. Hodges and Dunn argue the settlement fund should require judicial review and that its creation amounts to blatant presidential corruption.
The officers are asking the court to deem the fund illegal, arguing its creation did not follow federal law. They also want the court to block any payments from the fund to those 1,600 individuals and, further, to block the fund entirely so that no one receives payments from it.
The legal challenge is expected to move through the courts for months.
RELATED STORY | Jan. 6 Capitol riot participants file lawsuit accusing police of excessive force
On the legislative front, the anti-weaponization fund could also face limits through the Senate reconciliation bill Republicans are working to advance. Democrats are expected to use the amendment voting process — known as a Votarama — to introduce limitations or potentially block the fund entirely. Republicans may attempt to preempt those efforts by putting their own restrictions on the fund first.
Many questions about the fund remain unanswered, including who the commissioners would be, who is eligible, what parameters would govern qualification, and how large payments could be. No legislative text outlining any potential limitations has been released.
