Former Vice President Mike Pence (R-IN) called a proposed federal "anti-weaponization" settlement fund "deeply offensive" and urged that it be abandoned.
The proposal represents a significant rift between the former vice president and the Trump administration regarding the legal and moral aftermath of the Jan. 6 Capitol attack. Pence argues that the fund could reward individuals who engaged in violence against the U.S. government.
Speaking to the press in Washington, D.C., on June 5, 2024, Pence criticized the plan to establish a fund to compensate those alleging political motivation in legal actions [1, 2]. He specifically targeted the possibility that the money could reach those who attacked the Capitol.
"It's deeply offensive to me that you could have a fund that could even possibly compensate people who assaulted police officers or vandalized the Capitol on January 6th," Pence said [1].
Reports on the size of the proposed fund vary slightly, with some sources citing $1.8 billion [2, 3] and others specifying $1.776 billion [4]. Pence described the initiative as a "bad idea" and characterized the $1.8 billion proposal as a "slush fund" for allies [2, 3].
This includes, according to Pence, people who participated in the Jan. 6 events, and even those who shouted to hang him during the riot [2]. He said that the prospect of compensating such individuals is morally unacceptable.
While the Trump administration presents the fund as a way to address claims of political weaponization within the justice system [2], Pence's opposition highlights a continuing conflict over the legitimacy of the Jan. 6 prosecutions [1, 2].
“"It's deeply offensive to me that you could have a fund that could even possibly compensate people who assaulted police officers..."”
This public disagreement underscores a fundamental tension within the Republican party regarding the Jan. 6 Capitol attack. While the Trump administration seeks to frame the legal repercussions of the riot as political weaponization, Pence's stance reinforces the view that the events were criminal acts requiring accountability. The scale of the proposed fund suggests an attempt to create a massive financial safety net for political allies, which could potentially clash with existing federal laws regarding the compensation of individuals convicted of violent crimes.
