The January 6, 2021, insurrection at the US Capitol has left a trail of devastation and unanswered questions. Now, some of those involved in the violence are seeking millions of pounds in compensation from the US government through an obscure federal process, raising concerns about accountability and the potential for abuse.
The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) allows individuals to seek monetary damages from the government for alleged wrongs, but critics argue that this mechanism grants the US Justice Department unchecked discretion over whether to settle claims. This has sparked fears that the Trump administration could use it to compensate individuals involved in the Capitol violence, particularly after its proposed '$1.8bn anti-weaponization fund' faced widespread bipartisan opposition and was put on hold.
The compensation, if awarded, would be drawn from the judgment fund, a perpetual appropriation established by Congress. However, experts warn that this risks transforming the judgment fund into a 'slush fund' if restrictions on its use are not rigorously enforced, potentially allowing for the settlement of 'bogus claims'. Rupa Bhattacharyya, a former director in the Justice Department's civil division, has expressed concerns about the potential misuse of the judgment fund.
Notably, many of the January 6 defendants pursuing these claims have received pardons from former President Donald Trump. A Florida attorney, Peter Ticktin, who is a long-time associate of the former president, has reportedly filed around 400 FTCA claims on behalf of these defendants and anticipates filing lawsuits now that the initial six-month waiting period has elapsed. Among those seeking compensation are individuals like Kenneth Joseph Thomas, an Ohio man sentenced for assaulting multiple police officers, and John George Todd III from Missouri.
Proponents of the FTCA route argue it offers advantages over the shelved 'weaponization fund'. Missouri attorney Mark McCloskey, who represents several January 6 defendants, suggests that the FTCA provides a statutory framework with clear rights to recovery, unlike the previous fund which lacked defined policies or procedures. He indicates that the broad eligibility for the 'weaponization fund' might have diluted per capita recoveries, making the FTCA a more robust avenue for compensation.