Trump's 'Anti-Weaponization Fund' faces additional lawsuits

The DOJ's attempt to launch the fund has sparked a bipartisan uproar.

The Trump administration's $1.8 billion compensation fund to pay those who claim they were targeted by the Biden administration is now at the center of three federal lawsuits.

The nonprofit watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington on Friday asked a federal judge to halt the creation of the fund, calling it "a jaw-dropping act of presidential corruption."

Earlier Friday, a coalition of nonprofits and individuals, including a former Jan. 6 prosecutor, filed a complaint in the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging that the creation of the fund bypassed Congress' authority over federal spending and violated the 14th Amendment's prohibition on using federal funds "in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States."

"Created following a collusive agreement between the President and his own administration, this Fund has no congressional authorization, no basis in law, and no accountability," the lawsuit said.

The CREW lawsuit attempts to establish legal standing by focusing on the purported secrecy of the fund, which it says is in "defiance of federal records preservation and access laws."

The new suit comes two days after former Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn and Metropolitan Police Department Officer Daniel Hodges, who both defended the U.S. Capitol in 2021 during the Jan. 6 attack, filed a similar lawsuit in D.C. asking a judge to halt the creation and funding of the controversial fund.

The lawsuit filed early Friday was brought by a former federal prosecutor who brought Jan. 6 cases, a law professor who was acquitted after being charged for his actions during an immigration raid, the National Abortion Federation, the nonprofit Common Cause, and the City of New Haven, Connecticut.

"Since its inception, this fund has been on a collision course with the United States Constitution," the lawsuit said.

The Department of Justice's launch of the "Anti-Weaponization Fund" -- in exchange for President Donald Trump dropping his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS and two other civil claims -- has sparked accusations of self-dealing and a bipartisan uproar over the possible use of taxpayer money to pay rioters who attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6.

While Trump previously said he was not involved in the creation of the fund, he took to social media on Friday to defend the use of taxpayer money in that manner.

"I gave up a lot of money in allowing the just announced Anti-Weaponization Fund to go forward. I could have settled my case, including the illegal release of my Tax Returns and the equally illegal BREAK IN of Mar-a-Lago, for an absolute fortune. Instead, I am helping others, who were so badly abused by an evil, corrupt, and weaponized Biden Administration, receive, at long last, JUSTICE!" Trump wrote.

Friday's lawsuit is also alleging that the use of the federal Judgment Fund -- an unlimited appropriation used by the federal government to pay court judgments and settlements -- to create the "Anti-Weaponization Fund" is an unlawful end-run around Congress' authority to appropriate money.

The lawsuits precede the establishment of the fund itself, which, according to the settlement agreement between Trump and the DOJ, is to be created by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche within 30 days. As part of the arrangement, Blanche is to appoint a five-commissioner committee to oversee claims.

Some legal experts have raised concerns about the viability of the lawsuits and if the plaintiffs bringing the cases -- including officers who defended the Capitol and a broad coalition of affected parties -- will be able to establish legal standing for the case to proceed.

ABC News Legal Contributor James Sample noted that the case filed earlier this week might struggle to establish that the two officers have been directly injured by the proposed creation of the fund.

"There's no question that they've been subjected to threats and harassment, and who knows what else from a security perspective, for the manner in which they've spoken out about Jan. 6 since then," Sample said -- but added that "all of those are past injuries that are not fairly traceable to the Judgment Fund."

Related Topics

Sponsored Content by Taboola