The Justice Department has abandoned plans to implement a proposed $1.8 billion administrative payout scheme described by some supporters as an "anti-weaponization" fund. In the aftermath, conservative allies and legal advocates are increasingly focused on a different, existing legal vehicle: the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), enacted in 1946, which permits individuals to submit administrative claims to the federal government for alleged misconduct and, if necessary, to pursue lawsuits in federal court.
"At my level, the fund is dead," said Stanley Woodward, the Justice Department's third-ranking official, in an interview. "If somebody wants to submit a claim against the government and sue us, they can still do that." Woodward's comment reflects the shift in emphasis from establishing a new administrative mechanism to using long-standing statutory processes already available to the public.
How the alternative would work
The FTCA lets individuals file an administrative form, commonly known as an SF-95, alleging government wrongdoing and requesting monetary damages. If the government declines to settle a claim administratively, the claimant may then initiate a lawsuit in federal court. Advocates for using the FTCA say it offers a practical route to compensation because claims can be resolved administratively and settled without formal adjudication by a judge, and because the government has authority through an existing mechanism known as the Judgment Fund to make payments when settlements are approved.
Patrick Jaicomo, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice who specializes in FTCA litigation, described the approach as "the most logistically feasible method." He said the government would retain considerable latitude in handling claims under the law. That flexibility includes the ability to authorize payment if the administration agrees to a claimant's requested amount before the claim progresses to litigation and judicial review.
Where the idea emerged and who is pursuing it
Conservative lawyers and political allies discussed the FTCA route in private strategy sessions, including a previously unreported meeting at the 2024 Republican National Convention, according to Michael Caputo, a longtime ally of the president who attended the gathering. Caputo said participants debated use of the Judgment Fund - a permanent congressional mechanism established in 1956 to pay settlements of claims and judgments against the federal government - as a source for payments under FTCA claims.
Caputo, who has been centrally involved in anti-weaponization efforts in the president's 2024 campaign and who filed what he describes as the first claim tied to the now-abandoned $1.8 billion fund, said the participants viewed the Judgment Fund as effectively a "limitless" pool that could circumvent political barriers to creating a new administrative fund. Caputo also said those in the conversations opposed proposals to make payouts to violent felons, including individuals who assaulted police officers during the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Other payout routes remain under consideration by some allies, Caputo said, but he added: "I’ve heard no indication that they’ve slowed down on trying to get victims paid." He also reported being told by administration officials to "watch this space." Caputo previously sought $2.7 million in what he called "restitution" from acting Justice Department leadership over investigations he viewed as part of the alleged "weaponization."
Claims already filed and litigation underway
Hundreds of people prosecuted in connection with the January 6 riot have already filed FTCA claims, and at least 10 individuals have moved from administrative filings to suing the government in federal court, according to lawyers working on these matters. Attorney Peter Ticktin said his firm represents more than 400 people who participated in the Capitol attack and who have submitted FTCA claims. Ticktin said he has filed 10 lawsuits so far and plans to file many more civil actions if administrative settlements are not reached.
Ticktin stated he seeks "restitution in the millions of dollars" for his clients and said he expects the government to settle many of these claims rather than see them through lengthy court proceedings. He has not been told that the government intends to pursue coordinated settlements for the cases his office has filed or for the claims submitted by his clients.
Official responses and public positioning
The White House, when asked about possible alternative compensation plans after the $1.8 billion proposal was shelved, pointed to prior public statements by the president and acting Attorney General Todd Blanche that the proposed fund would not go forward. A White House official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told reporters that there were "no additional announcements at this time" and cautioned that any speculation about potential future actions was just that - speculation. The official reiterated that the president "remains committed to addressing Biden-era weaponization."
A Justice Department official, also speaking on condition of anonymity, said the department is not encouraging people to submit FTCA claims. That statement sits alongside Woodward's public observation that administrative and judicial avenues for claims remain open.
On national television, the president reiterated his long-standing claim that supporters were targeted by what he describes as politically motivated law enforcement. Speaking on NBC's "Meet the Press," he said: "The people were destroyed by dirty cops and by weaponization. Many of those people should be compensated." The president has also used executive clemency in past cases to address those prosecuted for their roles in the January 6 events.
Republican Senator Lindsey Graham publicly backed pursuing payouts through the FTCA in a social media post. Woodward briefly appeared to affirm that approach in his own social media response, writing "We’re working on it," in a post that was later deleted. Woodward told reporters he intended to communicate that those who believe they were victimized by government misconduct retain a path to seek compensation, even without the $1.8 billion administrative fund.
Legal mechanics and timing issues
The FTCA's administrative filing process is governed by certain procedural rules. Claimants generally must file within two years of the incident that allegedly caused harm. Lawyers representing January 6 defendants are advancing an argument that the government wrongdoing constitutes ongoing harm, which they contend would extend the timeframe for filing. It is unclear how courts and the Justice Department will assess that interpretation in practice.
Rupa Bhattacharyya, a former Justice Department official who oversaw a compensation fund for victims of the September 11, 2001, attacks, said department lawyers typically agree to settlements only when they face significant risk of losing at trial, although the department retains broad discretion to settle a wide range of claims, including those related to January 6. She described the prospect of broadly using FTCA settlements to pay many political allies as "a travesty" from a policy standpoint, while also saying it was unlikely such payments would contravene the literal text of the law.
Precedents and prior settlements
The FTCA has been a vehicle for high-profile settlements in the past. Michael Flynn, who served briefly as national security adviser in the president's first term, received a $1.25 million settlement under the statute. The existence of such prior payouts is part of the rationale cited by those advocating FTCA filings now: that the law is a tested, if sometimes controversial, instrument for resolving claims against the government.
Political and legal contours
What began as a proposal tied to a legal settlement meant to resolve a $10 billion lawsuit by the president against the Internal Revenue Service has evolved into a legal strategy that relies on existing federal statute and administrative processes. The originally proposed "anti-weaponization" fund was crafted as part of a settlement to address the president's lawsuit alleging mishandling of his tax records. That proposal met intense criticism from some in Congress who viewed it as an improper use of taxpayer money to reward political allies, and Republican opposition in Congress contributed to the plan being placed on hold.
With the formal fund no longer moving forward, legal advocates and political allies have redirected energy toward the FTCA route. Whether the Justice Department will face sustained pressure to settle large numbers of FTCA claims, and whether courts will accept arguments about ongoing harm that could extend filing deadlines, are questions that remain open as dozens or hundreds of claims and lawsuits proceed through administrative and judicial channels.
Summary
The Justice Department has turned away from implementing a proposed $1.8 billion "anti-weaponization" settlement fund, and conservative allies are pursuing compensation for alleged government misconduct through the Federal Tort Claims Act. Hundreds of FTCA claims have been submitted, at least 10 lawsuits are already filed, and lawyers representing large groups of January 6 defendants say they expect many more filings. The FTCA's administrative and judicial processes, the Judgment Fund, and existing settlement precedents create a practical pathway for potential payouts, even as the department says it is not actively encouraging claims and questions linger about statutory deadlines and settlement patterns.