Some January 6 defendants who received pardons from President Donald Trump are pursuing millions of dollars in compensation from the federal government through a little-known legal process, raising new questions about taxpayer-funded payouts and political accountability.
The claims are being filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act, or FTCA, a law that allows people to seek damages when they claim they were harmed by the federal government. The process gives the Justice Department broad discretion to settle claims, and any approved payments can come from the federal Judgment Fund, a permanent source of money used to pay certain legal claims against the government.
The legal strategy has gained attention after the Trump administration’s proposed $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization fund” faced intense bipartisan backlash. Critics of that fund warned it could be used to compensate political allies, including people convicted in connection with the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Although the larger fund appears to be stalled for now, FTCA claims may offer another route for defendants seeking money from the government. Attorneys representing January 6 defendants say hundreds of claims have been filed or are being prepared.
TRENDING TODAY
Peter Ticktin, a Florida attorney and longtime Trump associate, told reporters he has filed around 400 FTCA claims on behalf of January 6 defendants. Another attorney, Mark McCloskey, has argued that the FTCA provides a clearer legal path than the proposed weaponization fund because it is tied to an existing statute and claims process.
Some of the people seeking compensation were convicted or pleaded guilty in cases involving violence against police officers. Critics say that makes the claims especially controversial. They argue that defendants who assaulted law enforcement should not receive taxpayer-funded settlements simply because they later received pardons.
Supporters of the claims argue that the defendants were unfairly prosecuted, coerced into plea deals or denied fair trials. However, there is no evidence of widespread wrongdoing in the January 6 prosecutions. Many defendants were indicted by grand juries, convicted by juries or pleaded guilty, and were sentenced by federal judges.
Legal experts say the Justice Department should be able to defend many of the claims, especially those based on malicious prosecution. Rupa Bhattacharyya, a former Justice Department official who worked on FTCA claims, warned that weak or politically motivated settlements could turn the Judgment Fund into something resembling the rejected “anti-weaponization” fund.
The controversy is also drawing attention from Congress. Sen. Adam Schiff has introduced legislation that would block people convicted of January 6-related offenses from receiving federal payouts tied to those events, even if they later received pardons. Some Republicans have also objected to the idea of payments going to people who attacked police officers.
The Trump administration has already settled some FTCA claims from Trump allies unrelated to January 6, including former national security adviser Michael Flynn and former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. Those settlements have added to concerns that the process could become politically charged.
Still, not every claim is being accepted. In at least one January 6-related case, the Trump administration has moved to dismiss claims from Andrew Taake, a Houston man who pleaded guilty to assaulting police officers. Federal lawyers argued that parts of his lawsuit failed to meet procedural requirements and named improper defendants.
The issue now centers on how the Justice Department will handle the growing number of claims. If DOJ aggressively defends the cases, many may fail in court. If it chooses to settle broadly, critics say the administration could effectively compensate pardoned January 6 defendants without creating a formal payout program.
That possibility is what alarms watchdogs and lawmakers. The question is no longer only whether the “anti-weaponization fund” survives. It is whether an existing legal mechanism can be used to achieve a similar result with less public oversight.
Why It Matters
The issue matters because it involves taxpayer money, January 6 accountability and the Justice Department’s discretion over legal settlements. If defendants who assaulted police officers receive payouts, critics say it could undermine public trust in the courts and law enforcement.
It also matters because the FTCA process is less visible than a formal compensation fund. That makes oversight harder and increases concerns that politically sensitive settlements could happen without broad public scrutiny.
What Comes Next
More FTCA lawsuits may be filed as waiting periods expire for claims already submitted to the government. Courts will then decide whether the claims can proceed, while the Justice Department will decide whether to fight or settle them.
Congress may also move to restrict payouts. Schiff’s proposal would bar January 6 offenders from receiving federal compensation tied to their prosecutions, but it is unclear whether such legislation can pass.
