Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said Tuesday he cannot commit to barring money from President Donald Trump's "weaponization" fund from reaching Jan. 6 Capitol rioters who assaulted police [1].

The statement raises significant legal and ethical questions regarding the use of federal resources to compensate individuals convicted of violent crimes against law enforcement. If the fund allows payouts to those who assaulted officers, it could signal a fundamental shift in how the U.S. government treats political violence.

Blanche testified during a hearing before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee in Washington, D.C., on May 19, 2026 [1, 2]. The committee is currently reviewing the legality and policy implications of the proposed fund, which is designed to compensate people the president claims were "weaponized" by the federal government [3].

During the proceedings, lawmakers questioned whether the fund would be restricted to prevent payments to those who committed violent acts during the Capitol riot. "I cannot commit to barring money from the fund from going to those individuals who assaulted police on Jan. 6," Blanche said [4].

This lack of a guarantee comes as critics argue that such a fund could serve as a reward for insurrection. The administration's current stance suggests a broad interpretation of who qualifies as a victim of government weaponization, a definition that may include those prosecuted for the events of Jan. 6.

Blanche said that the executive branch is still examining the legal framework of the initiative. "The administration will review the fund’s language to ensure it does not violate any law," Blanche said [5].

The hearing highlighted a deep divide over the definition of government overreach. While the administration views certain prosecutions as politically motivated, opponents argue that paying rioters who attacked police undermines the rule of law, and the safety of federal officers.

“"I cannot commit to barring money from the fund from going to those individuals who assaulted police on Jan. 6."”

The potential use of a federal fund to compensate Jan. 6 defendants, including those who assaulted police, represents a departure from standard Department of Justice protocols regarding the victims of federal crimes. By refusing to exclude violent offenders, the administration is positioning the 'weaponization' fund as a tool for political restitution rather than a standard legal remedy, likely triggering challenges over the Appropriations Clause and the legality of using public funds to reward criminal conduct.