The $1.776 Billion Reward: When Insurrection Gets Paid

They weren’t just pardoned. Now they’re getting paid.

The $1.776 Billion Reward for Insurrection: On Taxpayer-Funded Impunity and the Corruption That Dares Call Itself Justice

There are moments in the life of a republic when the mask slips so completely, so suddenly, and so publicly that the only appropriate response is to stare directly at what has been revealed, without the diplomatic softening, without the bothsidesism, without the reflexive search for mitigating context and call it precisely what it is. This is one of those moments. And what has been revealed is not a policy disagreement, not a difference of political philosophy, not the kind of partisan dispute that reasonable people can navigate with mutual goodwill and a willingness to find common ground. What has been revealed is something considerably more serious and considerably more dangerous, and it deserves to be named with the directness that its gravity demands.

The Justice Department of the United States of America has announced the creation of a $1.776 billion fund, the specific figure’s patriotic resonance presumably considered an improvement on the more straightforward $1.8 billion to compensate individuals who claim they were harmed by the “weaponization” of the legal system during the Biden administration. The commission overseeing the fund would have total authority to hand out approximately $1.7 billion in taxpayer funds to settle claims brought by anyone who alleges they were harmed, including the nearly 1,600 individuals charged in connection with the January 6th Capitol attack, as well as potentially entities associated with President Trump himself. aol

Let us pause on that sentence and give it the weight it deserves. One point seven billion dollars of American taxpayer money, money extracted from the wages of nurses and teachers and truck drivers and the small business owners who form the rhetorical backbone of every Republican campaign speech is to be distributed, at the discretion of a commission that the President of the United States can remove without cause and that is under no obligation to disclose its decision-making process, to the people who stormed the United States Capitol on January 6th, 2021, beat police officers with flagpoles, smeared feces on the walls of the building that houses the legislative branch of the American government, and attempted to prevent the constitutional certification of a presidential election that their patron had lost.

They are to be compensated. With your money. By the man whose election they were trying to steal back for.

The Mechanism of the Swindle

Before the moral dimensions of this arrangement are examined and they require considerable examination, the procedural architecture of the swindle deserves attention, because it is, in its way, a work of remarkable cynicism.

Trump sued the executive branch that he himself oversees, an unprecedented legal move, experts noted filing a $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns. He then settled this lawsuit, which he filed against his own government, in exchange for the creation of a $1.7 billion fund to compensate his political allies.

Pause and absorb the full structure of what has just been described. The President of the United States sued the government of the United States, a government he controls and then settled that lawsuit with himself, in exchange for a fund that will pay his supporters with the taxes collected from the citizens of the country whose government he has just sued on his own behalf. Some administration officials raised ethical concerns about the arrangement, stemming not only from Trump suing his own government but also from having control of an entity that can freely hand out $1.7 billion to his allies. When asked about his legal claims last year, Trump acknowledged the lawsuit “sort of looks bad,” but claimed he would donate any money he receives to charity.

It sorts of looks bad. This is the presidential assessment of an arrangement in which the head of the executive branch has used his control of the Justice Department to extract $1.7 billion from the Treasury for his political allies. It sorts of looks bad. One is reminded of the defendant who, having been caught with his hand in the till, acknowledges that appearances may not be ideal.

Under the terms of the settlement, Trump would have the authority to remove members of the commission running the fund without cause, and the commission would be under no obligation to disclose its procedures or decision-making process for awarding more than a billion dollars. This is not a compensation fund. It is a slush fund with a patriotic name, administered by a commission whose independence is guaranteed by nothing more than the goodwill of the man who created it, oversees it, and whose allies will benefit from its distributions.

What Actually Happened on January 6th

The administration’s preferred vocabulary for the events of January 6th, 2021, has evolved through several iterations, each progressively more detached from the documented reality of what occurred. They were protesters. They were passionate citizens exercising their First Amendment rights. They were, in the President’s own formulation, patriots. Trump has described the rioters as peaceful protesters. newarab

Let us consult the record. More than 140 police officers were injured in the melee, and millions of dollars in damage was done. Five people died, including January 6th rioter Ashli Babbitt, who was shot and killed as she jumped through a broken window leading to the House Speaker’s Lobby. newarab

The officers who were beaten with flagpoles, with fire extinguishers, with their own equipment were not beaten by peaceful protesters engaged in legitimate political expression. They were beaten by a mob that had been assembled, inflamed, and directed toward the Capitol by a man who then watched the violence unfold on television for several hours before making a perfunctory and clearly reluctant request that the participants go home, a request that he preceded with the observation that he loved them and that they were very special.

The building they invaded, the building that houses the Congress of the United States, the branch of government that the founders considered so central to the democratic enterprise that they placed it in Article One of the Constitution, was ransacked. Windows were smashed. Offices were violated. Legislators were forced to hide under their desks and in secured locations while people carrying zip ties and wearing tactical gear hunted for them through the corridors. Gallows were erected outside. The assembled crowd chanted for the execution of the Vice President of the United States, a man whose constitutional role that day was purely ceremonial and whose only offense was his stated intention to perform it.

Feces were smeared on the walls of the United States Capitol. This is not a metaphor. It is a documented fact. And the people who smeared feces on the walls of the United States Capitol are now to be compensated, with taxpayer money, by the administration of the man in whose name they smeared it.

The Vocabulary of Victimhood

The fund’s formal name, the Anti-Weaponization Fund represents the complete triumph of a particular rhetorical strategy that the Trump political movement has deployed with considerable effectiveness over the past decade. The strategy is elegant in its simplicity. Take every accountability mechanism that a democratic society has developed for the purpose of ensuring that powerful people face the same legal consequences as everyone else investigation, prosecution, conviction and reframe each instance of its application to allies as evidence of political persecution. The law becomes weaponization. Prosecution becomes lawfare. Accountability becomes targeting. And the people who assaulted police officers and smeared feces on the walls of the Capitol become victims entitled to taxpayer-funded compensation.

A DOJ official named Ed Martin, who had hosted fundraisers for Capitol siege defendants on Trump properties, was named interim top federal prosecutor in the District of Columbia, where he oversaw the dismissal of hundreds of January 6th cases and the firing or demotion of dozens of prosecutors who worked on them. He told a conservative podcaster: “You’re damn right I want to pay J6ers. If you got wronged by the government, then you should be made right. That’s America.” newarab

That’s America. The man responsible for the dismissal of hundreds of cases against people who attacked the Capitol, a man who hosted fundraisers for the attackers on the properties of the man who incited the attack, tells us that compensating those attackers with public money is what America means. It is an interesting definition. It is not, however, an accurate one. What it actually describes is something that has a different name in the political science literature, one that serious students of democratic backsliding will recognize immediately.

Jenny Cudd, who pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor trespass charge related to her involvement, told CBS News that “all J6ers will apply for restitution” from the fund. “All of us,” she said, adding that news of the fund is widely circulating among January 6th defendants. “It’s all over Twitter and our group chats.” irishtimes

All of them. Every person who participated in the assault on the Capitol, who beat officers, smashed windows, hunted legislators, and called for the hanging of the Vice President is now preparing their application for taxpayer-funded compensation. The pardons cleared their records. The fund will fill their pockets. The only thing that appears to remain outstanding is a formal apology from the American people for having had the audacity to prosecute them.

The Unprecedented Structure of Self-Dealing

“They were pardoned. Their charges were dismissed. And now, they are to be paid.”

– Civil Heresy

Even setting aside the specific beneficiaries of this fund setting aside, for the purposes of argument, the question of whether people who attacked the Capitol deserve compensation rather than incarceration, the structural arrangement through which the fund has been created represents something without precedent in American political history.

The fund represents a further demonstration of the administration’s eagerness to reward allies who were investigated and in some cases charged and convicted. The president on his first day back in office pardoned or commuted the sentences of supporters who rioted at the Capitol. He then dismissed the charges against them. He then created a fund to pay them. At each stage of this process, the institution being used to benefit his allies was the institution he controls — the Justice Department, the pardon power, the settlement authority of the executive branch. The entire transaction has occurred within the walls of the executive branch, overseen by the person who benefits from it politically, with minimal congressional oversight and, under the terms of the fund’s governing structure, no required transparency about how decisions will be made. Yahoo!

Democrats described the fund as “a racket designed to take $1.7 billion of taxpayer dollars out of the Treasury and pour it into a huge slush fund for Trump at DOJ to hand out to his private militia of insurrectionists, rioters, and white supremacists, including those who brutally beat police officers on January 6, 2021.” Yahoo!

This characterization is partisan. It is also, in its essential factual claims, accurate.

What This Is.

There is a temptation, in the face of this arrangement, to reach for the comfortable vocabulary of political controversy to describe this as a “controversial decision” or a “polarizing move” or a “political gamble.” This vocabulary is not adequate to the situation. What the Anti-Weaponization Fund represents is not controversial in the sense that reasonable people applying good-faith reasoning to shared facts might reach different conclusions about it. It is corrupt in the specific and technical sense, the use of public power and public resources for private and partisan benefit, with the mechanism of that corruption being the deliberate dismantlement of the institutional safeguards that exist precisely to prevent it.

A president has sued his own government, settled the lawsuit with himself, created a fund with the proceeds that will be distributed to his political allies by a commission he controls and that operates without transparency requirements, and called the entire arrangement justice. The people who will benefit from it assaulted police officers, destroyed public property, and attempted to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. They have been pardoned for what they did. They have had their charges dismissed. They are about to be paid.

The police officers they beat have received no comparable attention from this administration. The legislators they hunted through the corridors of the Capitol have received no comparable concern. The democracy they attempted to interrupt has received no apology, no acknowledgment, and no assurance that what happened was wrong.

What it has received, instead, is a bill. Payable by the taxpayers. Collectible by the insurrectionists.

That is what $1.776 billion of American taxpayer money is about to accomplish. And the people spending it have named the fund after the principle it most thoroughly violates.

The date in the fund’s dollar amount, $1.776 billion is presumably meant to invoke the founding of the republic. One wonders if the founders, having risked their lives and fortunes to establish a government accountable to its citizens rather than to the ambitions of any single powerful man, would recognize what is being done in their name. One suspects they would not. One suspects they would have a great deal to say about it. One suspects, furthermore, that none of it would be printable in a family publication. 

---

Why It Matters

This isn’t a policy debate.

It’s a structural shift in how power works.

• Crimes become grievances
• Prosecution becomes persecution
• Public money becomes political reward

What you’re describing is not just corruption, it’s system-level inversion.

Because once a system can:

• Redefine wrongdoing as victimhood
• Use taxpayer money to reward loyalty
• Remove transparency from the process

Then accountability doesn’t weaken. It becomes optional.

And when accountability becomes optional, democracy becomes conditional.

---

Key Takeaways

• The proposed fund represents taxpayer-funded payouts to political allies
• The governing structure lacks transparency and oversight
• January 6 participants are being reframed as victims of the system
• Executive power is being used to control both legal process and outcomes
• The arrangement resembles self-dealing within government institutions
• Accountability mechanisms are being rebranded as political persecution
• This signals erosion of rule of law and institutional integrity

---

key questions to consider

Q1: Can the government create compensation funds?
Yes, but they are typically governed by strict legal frameworks, oversight, and transparency.

Q2: What is political self-dealing?
It occurs when officials use public office or resources for personal or partisan benefit.

Q3: Why is transparency critical in public funds?
It ensures accountability, prevents misuse, and maintains public trust.

Q4: What happens when accountability systems are undermined?
It increases the likelihood of corruption and weakens democratic institutions.

---

---

Further Reading: The Truth They Don’t Teach

1. Corruption in America. A deep history of how corruption shapes political systems. https://civilheresy.com/corruption in america
2. The Fifth Risk. Explores how leadership decisions impact government institutions. https://civilheresy.com/on fifth risk
3. Dark Money. A powerful investigation into money and influence in American politics. https://civilheresy.com/dark money

---

If this makes someone uncomfortable, good.

---

If this makes someone uncomfortable, good.