Thursday, October 1, 2026
It is commonly known that the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to a speedy trial. It is also understood that, sometimes, the wheels of justice move more slowly than we would like.
Americans are accustomed to legal proceedings plodding along. This is generally accepted because, in the vast majority of cases, the outcome is just. When it comes to justice for those responsible for the storming of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, however, two recent rulings ensure that we are never going to get the opportunity to see justice served.
In July, a federal judge granted a request by the Justice Department to dismiss a criminal case accusing five members of the far-right Proud Boys of seditious conspiracy in connection with the attack. A month later, another federal judge granted a similar request to throw out the same charges against eight members of the far-right Oath Keepers militia. In both cases, the judges, one appointed by President Trump, expressed deep regret for their rulings — but noted that they had little choice, given Trump’s Executive Order on Day One of his second term, granting clemency to all of the nearly 1,600 people charged with taking part in the insurrection.
Sadly, these cases mark the last traces of the Justice Department’s vast investigation into the Capitol attack. Worse yet, it’s still possible that any number of the Jan. 6 participants may benefit financially from their involvement. That’s thanks to the $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” created to compensate Americans who were unfairly targeted by federal law enforcement and prosecutorial actions during prior administrations. Those prosecuted as part of the investigation into the insurrection were clearly intended to be among those in line to benefit from the fund.
As part of his justification for the fund’s creation, then Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche cited the landmark Obama-era Native American farmers discrimination case Keepseagle v. Vilsack, which resulted in a $760 million settlement intended to compensate Native producers who were denied equal access to federal agricultural support.
While both cases involve the federal government creating large compensation programs for groups alleging systemic mistreatment, the similarities end there. For the Blanche-led Justice Department to invoke the suffering of Native Americans and compare it to that experienced by those who organized and carried out one of the most ignominious acts in our nation’s history was beyond ludicrous.
While the fund expectedly outraged Trump opponents, it caused internal problems for Republicans as well. Blanche’s nomination for the permanent A.G. post was held up in the Senate Judiciary Committee as two Republican senators, not satisfied with his testimony, insisted on written assurances that the fund would be terminated. Blanche eventually acquiesced, clearing the only obstacle to the approval of his nomination.
But is it really dead? Despite several pending court challenges, Blanche’s written statement seemed to kill it for good. However, he did not state that no such fund would ever be created in the future. In fact, no part of the termination order indicates that the DOJ could not revive it, or a comparable fund, in the future. Blanche has simply rescinded the fund — for now.
And despite his statement, the original IRS settlement that initially created the fund actually remains in effect — and gives the attorney general the power to establish the fund and all relevant rules that govern it.
With questions lingering about whether the fund could be revived in one form or another, I have proposed legislation that, while it does not prohibit receipt of federal compensation, creates a state mechanism to redirect those funds toward public purposes.
My bill specifically applies to payments connected to claims arising from those prosecuted for their conduct during the Jan. 6 attack, taxing them at no less than 100 percent.
Money generated from the tax would be used to support programs and services for victims of political violence and domestic extremism; protection of democratic institutions; election infrastructure security; civic education and constitutional governance programs; and, perhaps most fitting, historical education about Jan. 6.
While it’s my sincere hope that this legislation will never need to be invoked, the lingering questions about the fund’s potential to be actuated make it necessary to ensure that if such payments ever reach New Yorkers, those funds will serve the public good rather than becoming a private windfall.
Charles Lavine represents the 13th Assembly District and chairs the Assembly Judiciary Committee.
