The lawsuits landed Friday as opponents of the Trump administration challenged a new settlement mechanism described as an “Anti-Weaponization Fund” meant to address claims that government enforcement actions were used to target the president and his allies. The suit by Democracy Forward asked a federal court to halt the fund and stop any payouts while it argued the arrangement lacks a legal basis and accountability, according to the complaint language cited in the reporting.
According to the complaint, the fund was designed to resolve Trump’s lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns, and the plaintiffs said that “the unlawfulness that has imbued the Anti-Weaponization Fund from its inception requires that it be wholly dismantled.” The filing sought a court order preventing the administration from disbursing any money, arguing that the fund’s structure does not provide for the legal footing needed to carry out the payouts.
A second lawsuit, filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington in Washington, D.C., targeted the settlement in broader terms, calling it a “slush fund” created through what the group described as Trump’s “sham settlement,” according to the reporting.
The lawsuits identify several categories of plaintiffs. One group includes former Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Floyd, who prosecuted Capitol riot cases in Washington, D.C., before he was fired last year by then-Attorney General Pam Bondi. Floyd’s lawsuit says his firing followed his work on Jan. 6 cases, the reporting said.
The filings also include Jonathan Caravello, a California State University Channel Islands professor who was acquitted on an assault charge. 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, according to the reporting.
In addition to the individual plaintiffs, the suits name organizations and government entities. Common Cause was named, along with the city of New Haven, Connecticut. New Haven argued that Trump administration officials have targeted municipalities they view as “sanctuary” cities, the reporting said. The National Abortion Federation, an association of abortion providers, was also named, and the group said it fears the fund could pay people who attacked abortion clinics, creating incentives for more violence against its members, according to the reporting.
The defendants named in the Democracy Forward lawsuit include the Justice and Treasury departments, along with acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, the reporting said. Spokespeople for the departments did not immediately respond to emails seeking comment, according to the account.
The legal filings also come amid congressional scrutiny of the administration’s approach to potential eligibility for payments. During a congressional hearing on Tuesday, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche would not rule out the possibility that people described as Capitol rioters—those who assaulted police on Jan. 6, 2021—could qualify for fund payouts, according to the reporting.
The Capitol riot investigation that followed Jan. 6 is described in the reporting as the largest in the Justice Department’s history. The account says Trump ended the investigation with mass pardons and dismissals of pending cases after he returned to office last year, including clemency for supporters who assaulted officers and for members of far-right extremist groups who were imprisoned for plotting to attack the Capitol to keep Trump in office after he lost the 2020 election to Democrat Joe Biden.
The reporting also ties the new litigation to changes in how Capitol riot cases were handled within the Justice Department after Trump took office again. It says Trump appointed conservative activist Ed Martin as interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia and that Martin fired or demoted some prosecutors who worked on Capitol riot cases.
For now, the two lawsuits seek to stop the fund’s disbursement while courts consider whether the administration’s settlement structure can proceed as described.