A second federal lawsuit has been filed against the Trump administration’s planned $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund”, escalating legal challenges over a compensation programme intended for people who say they were targeted by the Biden administration.
Get today's headlines by email 
The complaint, filed on Friday in the Eastern District of Virginia, argues that the fund was created without congressional approval and violates constitutional limits on federal spending. The suit also claims the initiative breaches the 14th Amendment’s ban on using public money “in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States”.
The legal action was brought by a coalition of nonprofit groups and individuals, including a former prosecutor involved in January 6 cases, the advocacy group Common Cause, the National Abortion Federation, and the city of New Haven, Connecticut.
In court filings, the plaintiffs argued the fund lacked any legal foundation or oversight.
“Created following a collusive agreement between the President and his own administration, this Fund has no congressional authorization, no basis in law, and no accountability,” the lawsuit stated.
Second Legal Challenge
The latest case follows a separate lawsuit filed earlier in Washington, D.C., by former Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn and Metropolitan Police officer Daniel Hodges. Both officers defended the Capitol during the January 6, 2021 attack and are seeking to block the fund before it is established.
The Department of Justice announced the creation of the “Anti-Weaponization Fund” as part of a broader settlement arrangement involving President Donald Trump. In exchange, Trump agreed to drop a $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service and two additional civil claims.
The proposed fund has triggered criticism from both Democrats and some Republicans, particularly over the possibility that taxpayer money could ultimately benefit people convicted or accused in connection with the Capitol riot.
Under the agreement, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche is expected to establish the fund within 30 days. Blanche would also appoint a five-member commission responsible for reviewing and approving claims.
Trump Defends the Plan
Although Trump previously said he was not directly involved in creating the programme, he publicly defended it on social media on Friday.
He said he had sacrificed the possibility of securing a large personal settlement in order to support people he described as victims of a “weaponized” Biden administration.
Trump cited both the disclosure of his tax returns and the FBI search of his Mar-a-Lago property among the grievances connected to the settlement discussions.
The Virginia lawsuit also challenges the administration’s planned use of the federal Judgment Fund, a permanent appropriation typically used to pay legal settlements and court judgments against the government.
Plaintiffs argue the administration is improperly using that fund to bypass Congress’s constitutional authority over federal spending.
Questions Over Legal Standing
Despite growing political controversy, some legal experts have questioned whether the lawsuits will succeed.
A key issue is whether the plaintiffs can demonstrate legal standing — meaning they can show they would be directly harmed by the creation of the fund.
ABC News legal contributor James Sample said the earlier case brought by the Capitol officers may struggle to meet that requirement because many of the harms they cite relate to past events rather than future consequences tied directly to the compensation programme.
Sample acknowledged that the officers had faced threats and harassment since speaking publicly about January 6, but argued those injuries may not be legally connected to the proposed use of the Judgment Fund.
The lawsuits were filed before the compensation fund itself has formally begun operating.
Join the discussion? 
Already a member? 
Adapted by ASEAN Now. Source 23 May 2026
Recommended Comments
Create an account or sign in to comment