Even though the Department of Justice has officially scrapped plans for the $1.8 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund, the saga surrounding potential payouts for Jan. 6 defendants is far from over. It turns out that many of these individuals are simply pivoting to other legal avenues to seek compensation from the government, ABC News reported. While the headline-grabbing fund is off the table, the underlying push for damages remains a very active part of the current legal landscape.
President Donald Trump himself seems to be keeping the door open for these efforts. During a podcast appearance this week, he signaled support for the idea that those involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, events should be made whole. He noted that he is very proud to have given them pardons, and he thinks they should be reimbursed for a crooked government. This sentiment suggests that while the specific $1.8 billion vehicle may be gone, the administration’s stance on the issue hasn’t necessarily shifted.
If you are wondering how these defendants plan to get their money without the dedicated fund, the answer lies in the Federal Tort Claims Act. This law allows people who believe they were harmed by the federal government to file claims for damages. If the government fails to respond to those claims within six months, the door opens for the individuals to file formal lawsuits. It is a more traditional, albeit slower, route than the administrative fund was supposed to be.
The administration is essentially trying to find an alternative, critics would suggest
Peter Ticktin, a Florida-based attorney who represents a massive group of Jan. 6 defendants, is already moving ahead with this strategy. He told ABC News that he has already filed claims for approximately 200 clients. He is not stopping there, either. He expects to file claims for another 200 people in the near future. While he admitted that the government has basically ignored the claims he has already submitted, he is holding out hope that the U.S. Attorney’s Office in D.C. will be more cooperative now that Jeanine Pirro is involved.
Ticktin is clearly not discouraged by the cancellation of the Anti-Weaponization Fund. He mentioned that most of his clients understand the decision, noting, “everybody just understands that the timing wasn’t right, and they get it.” He even offered a bit of perspective on why the fund struggled, suggesting, “the biggest problem with the fund was the lack of the DOJ’s ability to simply explain it.” He also pointed out that the DOJ should have drawn a line in the sand by ruling out defendants who were charged with assaulting police officers, as those individuals were not victims of weaponization.
His legal team is already testing the waters in court. Just last week, Ticktin filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., representing nine plaintiffs. The suit seeks at least $1 million in damages per person. Interestingly, seven of those nine plaintiffs were actually convicted of crimes related to the Jan. 6 events, though all of them received pardons last year. The lawsuit alleges that they were wrongly and vindictively prosecuted, citing a wide range of misconduct by law enforcement.
The excitement surrounding the original fund was largely due to the perception that it would be a streamlined, quicker process. David Johnston, an attorney from South Carolina who was present at the Capitol on Jan. 6, explained that the appeal of the fund was that it could be quicker and easier. He described it as being more akin to applying for a government program or government grant. While he remains available to help others apply if the fund were to somehow stay in existence, he is also looking at the broader landscape of available legal paths.
Johnston also weighed in on the uncertainty surrounding the DOJ’s current position. He noted that he guesses the question is whether Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche is the final word. He acknowledged that by title and in law, he is not, but he could be speaking for somebody higher up. For now, the administration is standing firm on its decision to pull the plug. During testimony before a House subcommittee on Tuesday, Blanche confirmed that the department is not moving forward with the fund. When pressed by Rep. Grace Meng on whether this was a permanent decision, he replied, Correct.
Despite that confirmation, Blanche faced some heat for refusing to put the commitment in writing. He questioned why he would need to do so, though it is clear that such a move would be necessary to resolve the multiple lawsuits currently challenging the fund.
While the department is backing away from the fund itself, it is important to note that the administration is not rescinding the original settlement agreement that ended Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS. This distinction is keeping the legal pressure high, as a federal judge in Florida continues to look into whether the creation of that settlement amounted to unlawful collusion.
Published: Jun 4, 2026 03:45 pm