Jan. 6 cops sue to block $1.776B 'slush fund' created in wake of Trump settlement with IRS
Trump’s settlement with the IRS included the creation of the fund challenged by the officers.

SOURCE CHECK
TAP FOR WHYThe New York Post is an established national outlet with identifiable authors and editorial operations, though its tabloid style and uneven reputation warrant a score below leading newspapers of record. This article identifies the lawsuit and quotes both its claims and a government official’s response.
- Source type — Established national news publisher; tabloid format is a modest limitation.
- Editorial standards — The page presents a reported article, but the available text does not establish detailed standards or corrections practices.
- Author attribution — A named author is identified.
- Source transparency — The article identifies the lawsuit and quotes a named government official, but provides limited sourcing beyond those materials.
The article reports the lawsuit’s claims, gives details about the settlement and proposed distribution process, and includes Blanche’s response. Its account is narrow and does not include a fuller response from Trump or a competing explanation from the fund’s proponents.
HOW WE SCORE ↗The article gives substantial space to the officers’ allegations and includes Blanche’s clarification that eligibility to apply does not guarantee payment. It does not include a direct response from Trump or a fuller argument from supporters of the fund.
- Counterarguments presented — Blanche’s statement provides a limited counterpoint about how applications will be treated.
- Source diversity — The plaintiffs’ claims dominate; only one government response is included.
- Loaded language — The most charged descriptions are attributed to the complaint, though they shape the story’s emphasis.
The article uses a straight news format and attributes its strongest critical language to the lawsuit. Its emphasis is on the plaintiffs’ allegations, but it also includes Blanche’s explanation of the application process.
- Language tone — Strong phrases such as “corrupt sham” are presented as the plaintiffs’ words rather than the reporter’s verdict.
- Framing — The story centers on the officers’ challenge to the fund and its alleged risks.
- Source selection — The article includes the plaintiffs’ allegations and a response from Acting Attorney General Blanche.
Former Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn and Metropolitan Police Officer Daniel Hodges sued to stop a $1.776 billion federal fund established in connection with President Trump’s settlement with the IRS. They argue the fund could endanger officers by supporting people involved in the Jan. 6 attack.
Dunn and Hodges filed suit seeking to dissolve the $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund, which was created as part of a settlement in which Trump dropped his lawsuit over the leaking of his tax returns. The officers argue the fund could finance people who threatened them and others involved in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot; those are claims made in the suit, not findings by a court.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told lawmakers that people may apply for the fund but will not automatically receive money. A five-member panel selected by the attorney general will distribute the funds, and its members had not yet been named.
Community verdict
27 VOTESPeople in this story
SWIPE →President whose settlement with the IRS established the fund
Former Capitol Police officer and plaintiff suing to block the fund
Dunn's version of this story ↗Acting attorney general named as a defendant and quoted about the fund
Former president whose 2020 election victory was being affirmed during the Capitol attack
Part of a bigger story
5 OUTLETSFormer Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn and Metropolitan Police Officer Daniel Hodges sued to block a $1.776 billion fund tied to Trump's IRS settlement. They argue it could support people involved in the Jan. 6 attack and endanger officers. Left-leaning outlets emphasize the officers' challenge and claimed risks to police, with one also criticizing Rep. Ben Cline's silence. Center outlets map North Carolina politicians' differing positions on the proposal. Right-leaning outlets likewise center the officers' challenge and its alleged risks.
- ARTICLES
- 5
- OUTLETS
- 5
- AVG CRED
- 70
Discussion · 0
Loading comments…


