A former January 6 prosecutor fired by the Trump administration joined other plaintiffs on Friday in filing a federal lawsuit seeking to block a $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund they allege is politically discriminatory and unconstitutional. The legal challenge, filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, represents one of several lawsuits targeting the controversial fund on the same day.
Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Floyd, who served as a deputy in the Capitol Siege Section before being fired by Attorney General Pam Bondi in June 2025, is among the plaintiffs challenging the fund. The lawsuit argues that the fund violates the law because it only allows claims from individuals who assert they were targeted by Democrat administrations.
Multiple Lawsuits Target the Fund
The Friday legal filings represent a coordinated effort to challenge the fund through multiple avenues. In addition to the lawsuit filed by Floyd and other plaintiffs, former Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn and Metropolitan Police Department Officer Daniel Hodges filed a separate lawsuit. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington also filed another federal lawsuit challenging the fund.
The primary lawsuit includes a diverse group of plaintiffs beyond Floyd. Cal State Channel Islands professor Jonathan Caravello, who was acquitted of assault on law enforcement charges following an incident last summer, joined the legal action. The city of New Haven, the National Abortion Federation, and Common Cause also joined the suit.
Democracy Forward represents all plaintiffs in the main lawsuit. The organization has filed more than 150 lawsuits in the first year of Trump’s second term.
What We Know So Far
The $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund was established as part of a settlement agreement not overseen by the court. According to the lawsuit, the fund is structured to only accept claims from individuals who believe they were targeted by Democrat administrations.
The plaintiffs allege in court documents that “by its own terms, the Anti-Weaponization Fund is available only to claimants who assert that they were targeted by ‘Democrat’ administrations, even though the current administration has weaponized the awesome power of the federal government against its perceived political opponents like no other administration before it.”
Skye Perryman, President and CEO of Democracy Forward, stated that “there’s literally no legal authority for the fund. You don’t get to snap your fingers and it just appears. Congress hasn’t authorized the fund. There’s actually no legal authority to do this.”
The lawsuit further alleges that the fund “was created solely by Executive fiat, an unconstitutional taxpayer-funded giveaway to the President’s allies.”
Capitol Police Officers Speak Out
The separate lawsuit filed by former Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn and Metropolitan Police Officer Daniel Hodges focuses on the connection between the fund and events surrounding January 6, 2021.
According to the lawsuit, “First, hundreds of people attacked the foundation of an ordered society by trying to stop the results of a free and fair election—committing serious assaults on law enforcement and other crimes as they did so.”
The filing continues: “Then, this administration pardoned them — removing the accountability that had been hard earned by victims, witnesses, law enforcement, and prosecutors and imposed by impartial jurors and judges. Now they are asking taxpayers to illegally reward them for their crimes.”
Background on Key Plaintiffs
Andrew Floyd worked as an Assistant U.S. Attorney and served as a deputy in the Capitol Siege Section, which handled prosecutions related to the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack. He was fired by Attorney General Pam Bondi in June 2025.
Jonathan Caravello, a professor at Cal State Channel Islands, was acquitted of assault on law enforcement charges stemming from an incident last summer. His inclusion in the lawsuit highlights the plaintiffs’ argument that the fund discriminates based on political affiliation.
The lawsuit notes that President Trump, his sons, and the Trump Organization had previously sued for $10 billion over IRS filing leaks but later dropped the lawsuit.
What Happens Next
The lawsuits will proceed through the federal court system. The main lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, where judges will consider the plaintiffs’ arguments about the fund’s legality and constitutionality.
The plaintiffs are seeking to block the fund, arguing it lacks congressional authorization and discriminates based on political affiliation. Court proceedings will determine whether the fund can continue operating in its current form.
Important Details
The anti-weaponization fund totals $1.8 billion according to court filings. The fund was established through a settlement agreement that was not overseen by the court, which the plaintiffs cite as part of their legal challenge.
Democracy Forward, which represents the plaintiffs in the main lawsuit, has established itself as a significant legal opponent to the administration, having filed more than 150 lawsuits during the first year of Trump’s second term.
The lawsuits name multiple defendants and challenge both the legal authority for creating the fund and its structure, which plaintiffs allege limits eligibility based on political considerations.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the anti-weaponization fund?
The anti-weaponization fund is a $1.8 billion fund established by the Trump administration through a settlement agreement. According to the lawsuits, it allows claims from individuals who assert they were targeted by Democrat administrations.
Who filed lawsuits against the fund?
Multiple parties filed lawsuits on Friday, including fired January 6 prosecutor Andrew Floyd, Cal State Channel Islands professor Jonathan Caravello, the city of New Haven, the National Abortion Federation, and Common Cause. Separately, former Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn and Metropolitan Police Officer Daniel Hodges filed their own lawsuit, as did Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
Why are plaintiffs challenging the fund?
Plaintiffs allege the fund is politically discriminatory because it only accepts claims from those who say they were targeted by Democrat administrations. They also argue the fund lacks congressional authorization and was created without proper legal authority.
When was Andrew Floyd fired?
Andrew Floyd was fired by Attorney General Pam Bondi in June 2025. He had served as a deputy in the Capitol Siege Section, which handled January 6-related prosecutions.
The lawsuits represent a significant legal challenge to the administration’s anti-weaponization fund, with multiple cases now pending in federal court. The outcome of these legal proceedings will determine whether the $1.8 billion fund can continue operating under its current structure.
