$1.7 billion DOJ fund

This broke today and connects directly to the $1.7 billion DOJ fund we discussed earlier. The lawsuit was filed just hours ago.

Former Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn and Metropolitan Police Department Officer Daniel Hodges filed suit today to block the Trump administration's $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund, describing it as a "taxpayer-funded slush fund to finance the insurrectionists and paramilitary groups" that committed violence in Trump's name. PBS

The timing of the suit was triggered in part by a remarkable statement from Todd Blanche the day before. In testimony to a Senate appropriations panel, Blanche declined to rule out the possibility that those who assaulted law enforcement officers on January 6 would be eligible for a payout from the fund. "I will definitely encourage the commissioners to take everything into account when determining who should get compensation," Blanche said. That statement — from Trump's former personal criminal defense attorney, now serving as acting Attorney General — made explicit what many had suspected about the fund's purpose. WJTV

The lawsuit's language is direct and pointed. The officers argue the fund will grant past acts of violence "legal imprimatur," and that "most chillingly, the fund will signal to past and potential future perpetrators of violence against Dunn and Hodges that they need not fear prosecution; to the contrary, they should expect to be rewarded." They also warn that militias like the Proud Boys will use money from the fund to arm and equip themselves.

Dunn put it plainly in his own words: "We are going to sue to stop this illegal slush fund. We believe that we, the officers in this suit, will be harmed by this. We have been subjected to countless death threats in addition to all the violence that we faced on Jan. 6." CNN

The defendants named in the suit are Trump, Blanche, and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. The DOJ is expected to argue the officers lack legal standing — the same procedural shield the administration has used repeatedly to keep challenges to its actions out of court. Whether a judge agrees will be the first real test of whether the $1.7 billion fund can be challenged at all.

It's a Latin legal phrase — "imprimatur" literally means "let it be printed" or more broadly "let it be approved." In legal usage it means official sanction or authorization.

So when the officers say the fund would grant past acts of violence "legal imprimatur," they mean it would amount to the government officially blessing what happened on January 6 — not just forgiving it through pardons, but actively compensating the people who did it with taxpayer money. The argument is that paying someone for what they did is a far more powerful statement than simply not punishing them. A pardon says "we won't prosecute you." A payout says "you were right."

That's the core of why the officers find it so alarming. The pardons were already a signal that the administration viewed the rioters sympathetically. The fund takes it a step further by potentially treating the violence as a compensable injury suffered by the rioters rather than a crime committed by them — and doing so with public funds, administered by a commission controlled by the man who sent them to the Capitol in the first place.