Two police officers who defended the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, have filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, challenging the establishment of a $1.776 billion fund intended to compensate victims of alleged government "weaponisation." Officers Harry Dunn and Daniel Hodges argue in their lawsuit, filed Wednesday, that the fund represents a "brazen act of presidential corruption" and could be used to reward participants in the Capitol attack.

The lawsuit seeks to dissolve the fund, which was established early in President Trump's second term, to prevent taxpayer money from being disbursed to individuals involved in the assault on the Capitol. The attack saw thousands of Trump supporters attempt to disrupt the certification of the 2020 presidential election results.

Dunn and Hodges, who both stated they were injured during the riot, contend that the fund would "directly finance the violent operations of rioters, paramilitaries, and their supporters." The lawsuit highlights that Trump has previously suggested the January 6 participants were "treated unfairly" and that the new fund offers a mechanism to compensate them with minimal oversight.

Experts suggest that if the fund proceeds, it could embolden further politically motivated violence. The officers' legal action argues that compensating those who attacked the Capitol sends a dangerous message that such actions will be rewarded, potentially increasing the threats and harassment they already face.

According to the complaint, Dunn, a former Capitol Police officer, and Hodges, who remains with the Metropolitan Police Department, have continued to endure violent threats and harassment since the January 6 attack. Hodges described being "nearly crushed by rioters" against a Capitol door, while another officer reported hearing threats to "kill him with his own gun." The officers feared for their lives during the incident.

The lawsuit points to Trump's actions on his second term's first day, including issuing blanket pardons to nearly all January 6 participants and commuting the sentences of 14 others, as evidence of his intent to reward those involved in the Capitol riot.

The officers' legal team argues that the fund's existence alone "substantially increases the already sizeable risk of vigilante violence" they face daily and encourages those harassing them to escalate their actions.

This legal challenge raises significant questions about presidential authority in allocating funds and the potential for political retribution or reward through government programs. The outcome of the lawsuit could set a precedent for how such funds are established and utilized, particularly in contexts involving political unrest and violence.