A coalition of fired prosecutors, watchdog groups, and civil rights advocates filed a second federal lawsuit Friday to block the Trump administration from distributing nearly $1.8 billion in taxpayer money through a controversial fund created to compensate allies of President Donald Trump who claim they were wrongly targeted by the government.
The plaintiffs include former Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Floyd, an Alexandria resident who prosecuted Capitol riot cases in Washington, D.C., before he was fired last year by then-Attorney General Pam Bondi, and California State University Channel Islands professor Jonathan Caravello, who was acquitted of an assault charge after being accused of throwing a tear gas canister at federal agents during a 2025 protest against an immigration raid at a Camarillo, California, cannabis farm. Also named as plaintiffs were the government watchdog Common Cause; the city of New Haven, Connecticut; and the National Abortion Federation, an association of abortion providers.
Constitutional Concerns and Targeted Communities
The lawsuit, filed in Alexandria, Virginia, argues the fund is unconstitutional and violates a series of federal laws. The plaintiffs said the fund violates the Constitution by usurping Congress' authority over the country's purse strings. New Haven said Trump administration officials have targeted it and other municipalities they perceive to be sanctuary cities. The federation said it feared the fund would issue payments to people who have attacked abortion clinics, providing an incentive for more violence against its members.
The suit's defendants 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.
Questionable Origins and Oversight Gaps
The fund was announced five days ago and was born out of an extraordinary settlement reached between the Trump administration and Trump, one of his adult sons and the Trump Organization in a lawsuit they brought in January over the unauthorized disclosure of Trump's tax information years ago. The money is being drawn from the DOJ's Judgment Fund, taxpayer money set aside by Congress for monetary settlements the government reaches.
The lawsuit said the Trump administration's decision to draw from the Judgment Fund is unlawful because the underlying legal case was "meritless" given the president's unique role as both a plaintiff and the executive branch agencies named as defendants. The fund will be run by five commissioners selected by the attorney general and will review claims submitted by people who say they were unfairly targeted by previous administrations.
Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward and one of the attorneys who filed the lawsuit, said, "This latest attempt by the Trump-Vance administration to make grift great again is profoundly unlawful and will not withstand judicial scrutiny. This lawsuit is about protecting the rule of law and preventing a dangerous abuse of government power, and we will keep showing up in court to hold this administration accountable."
Capitol Riot Connections Raise Alarm
During a congressional hearing on Tuesday, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche would not rule out the possibility that rioters who assaulted police on Jan. 6 could be eligible for fund payouts. Two police officers who helped defend the U.S. Capitol from the Jan. 6, 2021, mob also sued this week to prevent anyone, including Capitol rioters, from receiving payments from the settlement fund.
The Capitol riot investigation was the largest in Justice Department history. Trump ended it with the stroke of his pardon pen, erasing hundreds of Jan. 6 convictions. Nearly 1,600 people were charged with Capitol riot-related federal crimes. Over 1,200 were convicted and sentenced before Trump handed out mass pardons, commuted prison sentences and ordered the dismissal of every pending Jan. 6 criminal case.
Beneficiaries of Trump's clemency included supporters who assaulted officers at the Capitol and far-right extremist group members imprisoned for plotting to attack the Capitol to keep Trump in office after he lost the 2020 presidential election to Democrat Joe Biden.
Internal Republican Divisions
The new fund has drawn criticism from Democrats and some members of Trump's own party. Senate Republicans said they were blindsided by it and at odds over how to rein it in. During a private meeting with acting Attorney General Todd Blanche on Thursday, several senators warned that the party's major immigration enforcement bill could be derailed with the issue of the fund hanging over them, and hardly any members spoke up in the meeting to defend it.
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. Martin, a leading advocate for Jan. 6 defendants, fired or demoted some prosecutors who worked on Capitol riot cases.
Why This Matters:
The legal challenges to this nearly $1.8 billion fund raise fundamental questions about democratic accountability and the proper use of taxpayer resources. The fund's creation through a settlement in which the president sued his own executive branch agencies, then used public money to establish payments for political allies, represents a potential erosion of constitutional checks on executive power. Communities already facing federal pressure—sanctuary cities, abortion providers, and those who prosecuted accountability cases—now confront the prospect of taxpayer dollars rewarding those who opposed their work. The refusal to rule out payments to individuals who assaulted police officers during the fifth year of reckoning with the Jan. 6 Capitol attack underscores concerns about whether public institutions will serve justice or political loyalty. With even some Republican senators expressing alarm, the outcome of these lawsuits will help determine whether congressional authority over federal spending and the independence of the justice system can withstand executive overreach.