After President Donald Trump’s administration moved to implement a new $1.776 billion settlement fund aimed at compensating Trump allies described as victims of a “weaponized” government, a group of Trump critics filed lawsuits intended to stop the payments, at least temporarily, and force judicial scrutiny of the program’s legal foundation.
The suits add to an emerging wave of backlash centered on how the administration framed the settlement tied to Trump’s earlier court fight against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns and on whether the resulting fund can lawfully and transparently disburse money to claimants.
One lawsuit, filed in Alexandria, Virginia, seeks an order halting the fund’s implementation and barring the federal government from disbursing any payouts from it. In the complaint, attorneys for Democracy Forward urged the court to dismantle the program, writing that “The unlawfulness that has imbued the Anti-Weaponization Fund from its inception requires that it be wholly dismantled.”
A second lawsuit filed Friday in Washington, D.C., was brought by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW. CREW’s complaint challenges the fund as a “slush fund” it describes as the product of Trump’s “sham settlement.”
Among the plaintiffs in the Democracy Forward-backed case is Andrew Floyd, a former Assistant U.S. attorney who helped prosecute Capitol riot cases in Washington, D.C., before being fired by then-Attorney General Pam Bondi. The lawsuit places Floyd among the people seeking to prevent any disbursements from the fund, with the complaint describing his view that his removal followed his work connected to Jan. 6.
The plaintiffs also include Jonathan Caravello, a California State University Channel Islands professor who was acquitted of an assault charge. The complaint says he was accused of throwing a tear gas canister at federal agents during a 2025 protest against an immigration raid at a Camarillo, California, cannabis farm.
Other plaintiffs named in the suit include the government watchdog Common Cause, the city of New Haven, Connecticut, and the National Abortion Federation. New Haven’s complaint says Trump administration officials targeted it and other municipalities they perceive to be “sanctuary” cities, while the federation says it fears the fund will make payments to people it says attacked abortion clinics, creating an incentive for more violence against federation members.
The federal defendants named in the Alexandria case include the Justice and Treasury departments, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. Spokespeople for the departments did not immediately respond to emails seeking comment.
In addition to the broader advocacy group suits, the Associated Press reports that two police officers who helped defend the U.S. Capitol from the Jan. 6, 2021 mob attack sued this week to prevent anyone, including Capitol rioters, from receiving payments from the settlement fund.
During a congressional hearing on Tuesday, Blanche did not rule out the possibility that rioters who assaulted police on Jan. 6 could be eligible for payouts, according to the AP report. That position was reflected in the lawsuits seeking to limit who can receive payments and whether the government can proceed with disbursements while the cases are pending.
The lawsuits come after Trump ended the long-running federal Capitol riot investigation through mass pardons and related actions, which the AP describes as erasing hundreds of convictions and dismissing pending cases. According to the AP, nearly 1,600 people were charged with Capitol riot-related federal crimes, and over 1,200 had been convicted and sentenced before the pardons, commutations, and dismissal orders.
After Trump returned to the White House last year, he appointed conservative activist Ed Martin as interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. The AP report says Martin has fired or demoted some prosecutors who worked on Capitol riot cases, a development that plaintiffs in this new litigation have pointed to as part of their broader challenge to the administration’s approach.