Case: Dunn v. Trump
1:26-cv-01719 | U.S. District Court for the District of District of Columbia
Filed Date: May 20, 2026
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This case is one of multiple challenges to the Department of Justice's creation of the Anti-Weaponization Fund, a $1.776 billion program intended to compensate individuals allegedly harmed by government "weaponization," alleging that it unlawfully uses federal funds to compensate purported victims of governmental "lawfare," including January 6 defendants.
A former U.S. Capitol Police officer (Harry Dunn) and an active Metropolitan Police Department officer (Daniel Hodges), partly represented by the Democracy Defenders Fund, filed suit on May 20, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against President Donald J. Trump, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, and Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent, each sued in their official capacities. Both plaintiffs defended the U.S. Capitol during the January 6, 2021 attack, and have since experienced persistent death threats, harassment, and physical confrontations, including being named on a public "retribution list," following President Trump's January 20, 2025 pardons of nearly 1,600 individuals charged in connection with the January 6 attack. The plaintiffs alleged that in January 2026, Trump, his sons, and the Trump Organization filed a frivolous $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and Treasury Department (Trump v. IRS), and transferred the $1,776,000,000 settlement to an "Anti-Weaponization Fund." The Anti-Weaponization Fund is designed to compensate individuals who claim they were victims of governmental "lawfare" or "weaponization," including January 6 defendants and members of groups such as the Proud Boys, some of whom had previously threatened Dunn and Hodges by name. The plaintiffs alleged that this fund increased the risk of violence against them by signaling that attacks committed in Trump's name would be financially rewarded. The complaint asserted five counts, including violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), violations of Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment by assuming debts or obligations incurred in aid of insurrection, and an ultra vires claim. The plaintiffs sought to have the Anti-Weaponization Fund declared unlawful, to set aside related agency actions and fund transfers, and to enjoin future payments.
The case was assigned to District Judge Richard J. Leon. Beginning in late May 2026, a series of nonparties moved to intervene as defendants or for leave to file amicus briefs, several of them prospective Fund claimants seeking to defend the program. On June 11, 2026, Judge Leon denied the pending motions for leave to file amicus briefs without prejudice, holding that the proposed submissions did not comply with the local rule requiring a table of contents and table of authorities.
On July 13, 2026, in the underlying Trump v. IRS litigation, District Judge Kathleen M. Williams issued a sanctions order finding that the case had been brought for an improper purpose and that the parties were never genuinely adverse. She prohibited the parties from relying on or citing the purported settlement agreement in any judicial, administrative, regulatory, or other official proceeding, but expressly declined to resolve whether they could enforce it as a private agreement.
After Acting Attorney General Blanche testified before Congress in June 2026 that the Department of Justice would not proceed with the Fund, the government took the position that challenges to the Fund were no longer justiciable. On August 2, 2026, Blanche signed an order rescinding his May 18, 2026 order establishing the Anti-Weaponization Fund and stated that it would have no force or effect. An accompanying, unsigned Department of Justice statement asserted that no members had been appointed, no funds transferred, no claims process established, no claims paid, and that there was no Fund. The order expressly cited this case, along with the parallel challenges in Floyd v. Department of Justice, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Department of Justice, Gordon v. Blanche, and Gill v. Department of Justice, and acknowledged that at least one court had declined to dismiss those challenges as moot. The rescission reached only the May 18 funding order and left in place both the settlement agreement that purported to create the Fund and the separate May 19, 2026 order granting audit-related immunity to the Trump v. IRS plaintiffs, who did not sign the rescission. It followed a monthslong standoff over Blanche's nomination to be confirmed as Attorney General, which two Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee had held up over the Fund and the immunity provision, and which the committee advanced on a 12-10 party-line vote on August 4, 2026.
As of August 2026, no substantive rulings had been issued and the case remained pending before Judge Leon, who had already denied preliminary relief in the related CREW matter after concluding that the government's representations likely rendered that challenge moot.
Summary Authors
Benjamin Glicksman (7/2/2026)
Simon Jillson (8/6/2026)
Related Cases
Gordon v. Blanche, District of District of Columbia (2026)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73367403/parties/dunn-v-trump/
Ballou, Brendan (District of Columbia)
Block, Andrew (District of Columbia)
CAMP, JOSEPH A. (District of Columbia)
DEBERRY, SHAUNESI (District of Columbia)
GOODMAN, JASON (District of Columbia)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73367403/dunn-v-trump/
Last updated Sept. 15, 2026, 3:18 a.m.
Docket for: DUNN v. TRUMP
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Public Benefits/Government Services
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Trump Administration 2.0: Litigation and Investigations Involving the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: May 20, 2026
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Two police officers who defended U.S. Capitol during January 6, 2021 attacks
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Federal
Donald J. Trump
Scott Bessent
Todd Blanche
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Ex Parte Young (Federal) or Bivens
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Spending/Appropriations Clauses
Other Dockets:
District of District of Columbia 1:26-cv-01719
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Case Summary of Dunn v. Trump, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/48260/ (last updated 8/6/2026).