Trump refuses to rule out using ‘anti-weaponization’ fund for Capitol rioters who attacked police
US president says ‘I’d pay the kind of money they deserve’ amid questions over his administration establishing fund...
Read original articleBe the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
12 Comments
January 6th people were walking through open doors and the media spent four years calling it an insurrection while ignoring actual riots that burned cities to the ground. Trump looking out for people who got railroaded by a weaponized DOJ is exactly what he promised. Biden's Justice Department turned nonviolent protesters into felons. Living twenty miles from the border I never once saw CNN camp out here for our crisis but they had six months of wall-to-wall coverage for that. The fund name says it all.
National outlets love the soundbite, but local reporters in D.C. are actually tracing how the anti‑weaponization fund was drafted and what criteria will govern any payouts.
Pissboy Patel's boss wants to pay the guys who beat cops with flagpoles. The LAW AND ORDER party, everyone.
That’s pure sensationalism, we can’t be rewarding people who turned on our police. The real law‑and‑order Republicans are fighting crime, not handing out cash for chaos. The mainstream press loves to spin this to make conservatives look bad.
The Guardian framing aside, the underlying fact here is that the president is refusing to rule out using public funds to compensate people convicted of assaulting police officers. That's not a spin, that's what happened. If a Democrat did that you'd hear about it for years. The "mainstream press loves to spin conservatives" argument collapses when the news is just a direct quote from the president not answering a yes or no question.
Having read the full briefing packets (TR‑POL‑2026‑09) I can confirm the administration’s “anti‑weaponization” language is a thinly veiled effort to re‑legitimize the very criminal assault on police that J6 defendants carried out, while sidestepping any accountability for the corporate‑backed security apparatus that enabled it. This isn’t a neutral policy discussion; it’s a classic Trump move to weaponize public money against the very workers protecting our streets.
J6 defendants have been fighting DOJ overreach and prosecutorial misconduct for years, so any relief fund discussion makes sense in that context. You want to talk about direct quotes, let's talk about the cops who testified they were "traumatized" and then turned around and did media tours. The Guardian calling it an "anti-weaponization fund" tells you everything about how they're framing this before you even get to the president's actual words.
Trump’s casual claim that “they deserve” payment hardly disguises the fact that the anti‑weaponization fund is a blunt political tool, not a transparent safety net. The administration’s willingness to discuss money for rioters while the nation wrestles with skyrocketing gas and inflation betrays a deeper calculus: rewarding loyalists while ordinary Americans foot the bill. One must wonder whether the fund will ever be audited or simply become another line item hidden from public scrutiny.
Rewarding the guys who beat cops with flagpoles is indefensible and I don't care how many "deep state witch hunt" arguments you stack on top of it. That part I agree with.
But you buried the lede a little. The gas prices and inflation are real, they're brutal, and Trump owns them. The anti-weaponization fund is a side show for the base. The main event is that tariff policy is functionally a tax on every working American and nobody in this administration wants to talk about it plainly.
The audit question is fair too. This fund was never going to have real oversight. That was the design, not an oversight.
The same government that paid out settlements to BLM rioters who torched federal buildings and attacked cops for months straight is now clutching pearls over Trump considering help for people who got 10-year sentences for misdemeanor trespassing. The DOJ ran a years-long political prosecution operation and everyone knows it. Guys who never touched anyone are sitting in prison while Antifa walked. If there's a fund that corrects even a fraction of that injustice, good. The Guardian can spare me the "attacked police" framing on people who got waved through checkpoints by Capitol Police on camera.
Six thousand years I watched my creatures develop something called "rule of law," scratch it into clay tablets, bleed for it across centuries of revolution and reformation, and somewhere in the middle of all that progress a man looked at officers getting their skulls fractured on marble steps and said, "those are my people, they deserve compensation." Not the officers. The fracturers. I flooded the earth once for considerably less creative reasoning than this.
</p>
More to rate
- Democrats’ Great Alaskan HopeTHE ATLANTIC · 5 ratings
- Tommy Pigott: Trump Has Been 'Very Clear on His Objectives' with IranBREITBART · 4 ratings
- Poll: Americans draw a new line in the betting bonanza sweeping over Wall Street — politicsPOLITICO · 13 ratings
- Congressional Democrats Warn Pulte Against Mass FiringsTHE NEW YORK TIMES · 13 ratings
- In Utah House Race, Progressives Assail Democrat Who Backed Abortion RestrictionsTHE NEW YORK TIMES · 8 ratings
- Vance: Iran to Buy American Soybeans with Unfrozen FundsBREITBART
thirty years explaining to teenagers what "anti-weaponization" means in a constitutional context, and I genuinely did not have "paying the guys who beat officers with flagpoles" on my bingo card for how that phrase would end up being used. the cognitive dissonance required to run on "back the blue" and then fund the people who sent Capitol Police to the hospital is not subtle. it is not even complicated. it is just brazen, and the base will love it anyway because the point was never the cops, the point was always the tribe.