Here’s How The Anti-Weaponization Fund Will Really Work — And Who It Could Help

Victims of Biden-era weaponization could see some restitution through a more than billion-dollar fund created by and administered by the Department of Justice (DOJ).

To better understand how the fund will work and who it aims to help, the Daily Caller spoke with several individuals who are likely to file claims with the fund and with others who could play a role in further shaping or even leading the board that will oversee the money.

The fund was announced May 18 after an agreement between President Donald Trump, the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service to drop a $10 billion lawsuit. The deal will create a $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund designed to issue formal apologies and monetary relief to claimants, according to a DOJ statement. (RELATED: No, The DOJ’s Fund For Victims Of Government Weaponization And Lawfare Isn’t A ‘Slush Fund’)

Members of the fund will be elected to oversee operations and determine how compensation is distributed. One candidate, Oversight Project President Mike Howell, told the Caller he believes he is well-suited for the role. After the Caller’s interview with Howell, he publicly announced his candidacy to lead the fund’s administrative board.

Howell said he and his team have spent much of the last five years analyzing the issues of government weaponization and lawfare and the individuals affected. If selected, he said, he would be able to “hit the ground running,” maximizing the use of the funds before the program’s 2028 termination date.

“We need people who can quickly go in and not be learning on the job,” Howell said. “I think I am almost uniquely well situated in that regard to do just that.”

As part of his campaign for the position, Howell released a 10-step plan aimed at helping the fund thrive under the slogan “Deplorables to MAGA Millionaires.” The plan includes a focus on victim-centered claims, a public award ceremony, and a commitment to considering the full context of each case. Howell’s plan to create a highly public and accessible process for claimants, notably, is highly reflective of the constitutional right to a redress of grievances by the federal government.

Howell also said he would create a weighted intake system to efficiently process the expected “deluge of data” and claims by categorizing cases based on the type of alleged weaponization involved.

Among the potential claimants Howell identified were Catholics and Christians targeted by government investigations, pro-life activists prosecuted under the FACE Act, and January 6 defendants.

NEW: TEN POINT PLAN FOR 1776 FUND
From Deplorables to MAGA Millionaires

For my candidacy to lead the historic Anti-Weaponization Fund, I am releasing this plan for the fund to thrive.

The fund is under attack, just like the victims it will serve.

Let’s save it, for them. https://t.co/iKJ6dnGiNC pic.twitter.com/FuLpqj61VJ

— Mike Howell (@MHowellTweets) May 29, 2026

One of the legal tools used by the Biden DOJ against Jan. 6 defendants — perhaps the largest and most vocal group of potential recipients — was 18 U.S.C. § 1512. The statute, originally intended to address financial crimes after the Enron scandal, was used in an unprecedented way against the roughly 350 Jan. 6 defendants accused of disrupting an “official proceeding.”

Joseph Fischer, whose Supreme Court challenge to the charge resulted in a 6-3 ruling finding the government’s use of the statute overly broad, told the Caller that prosecutors used the threat of a potential 20-year sentence under Section 1512 to pressure defendants into plea deals.

Fischer, himself a former law enforcement officer, said he was arrested by the same Federal Bureau of Investigation agency with which he had previously trained. He described the treatment of Jan. 6 defendants as “disheartening,” “a betrayal,” and “not how law enforcement works.”

The former hostage negotiator recalled that law enforcement vehicles lined the road to his house at 8 a.m., with far more officers present than his own department would have used to arrest even a suspected murderer or men who “would cut their mama’s throat without even thinking about it.”

“For me, being 10 feet inside the Capitol, this is what happens,” Fischer said to highlight the disparity in treatment.

Fischer said the only reason he was able to fight the charges, while many others accepted plea deals, was that he was lucky enough to secure a strong public defender and wanted to delay any potential prison sentence as long as possible.

Even so, Fischer said the case cost him dearly. He said he suffered severe health problems, lost much of his retirement savings, and said that it had been a miracle that he had not lost his home.

He added that many other Jan. 6 defendants also suffered financially and emotionally, not only because of legal costs and prison sentences, but because they lost jobs and were unable to focus on their families or futures.

“I hope we get something out soon, and I hope it’s enough to satisfy people,” Fischer said, adding that even if the fund were distributed solely among Jan. 6 defendants, it still might not be enough to make them whole. “I’d be happy with what we can get and just hope it’s enough.”

He wasn’t the only Jan. 6 defendant to agree that the fund was too small for the amount of weaponization for which it was meant to offer restitution.

Pat Stedman, a dating coach who entered the Capitol on Jan. 6, told the Caller that he suffered $300,000 in legal fees and another million in lost business following his arrest. That’s on top of one year spent in prison, three years under supervision and the reputational damage that came with his conviction.

Stedman said that because the fund is open to more than just pro-life activists, election whistleblowers and Jan. 6 defendants, he is worried that “there just isn’t enough to go around.” He added that the still-prevalent view of Jan. 6 defendants as perpetrators rather than victims of weaponization may hurt their chances for compensation, as well.

Stedman pointed the Caller to examples of weaponization, including pre-dawn raids, unjust trials and forced separation from his family, despite having “harmed nobody and damaged no property that day and complied with all police orders.”

“But dealing with Biden’s DOJ and the D.C. judiciary was the real trauma — they would grind down your spirit by weaponizing the legal system and use the endless procedure to bankrupt you. I had nightmares for months after release that I had somehow been hit with new charges,” Stedman said. “By the time I was pardoned by President Trump, I had spent literally every single day of Biden’s presidency either in prison or under some form of supervision.”

On January 6th I followed the crowd into the Capitol and shouted. Police stood by the whole time, hanging out with us and sometimes directing us places.

At one point near the House Chambers I was walking downstairs when a trio of some special section, secret service looking men… pic.twitter.com/MfXedvxQl5

— Pat Stedman | Dating & Relationship Coach for Men (@Pat_Stedman) May 22, 2026

Jeff Clark, a former high-ranking DOJ official and another alleged victim of weaponization, told the Caller that although the size of the fund would likely require caps on compensation, it would also allow recipients to resolve claims far more quickly than pursuing lawsuits against the DOJ.

Still, Clark said many questions remain unresolved, particularly regarding how claims will be evaluated and processed by the not-yet-established fund.

Alongside Jan. 6 defendants and other alleged victims, Clark argued that attorneys targeted for disbarment efforts by the 65 Project and Lawyers Defending American Democracy (LDAD) should also qualify for compensation.

He accused the groups of pursuing a “divide and conquer” strategy aimed at shaming attorneys, triggering disciplinary proceedings and filing ethics complaints against lawyers who questioned the outcome of the 2020 election.

Clark said he became a target of LDAD after authoring an internal DOJ memo — which only ever existed as a draft and not as a public document — suggesting the constitutional means under which the Georgia Legislature could convene a special session to investigate election concerns.

Although he acknowledged there may not be enough evidence to prove coordination in court, Clark said it appeared the DOJ may have aided disbarment efforts against him and his colleagues by rapidly turning over files to the D.C. Bar — “so fast your head could spin” — while he struggled to obtain records helpful to his own defense.

Clark also noted that Biden’s White House waived Trump’s executive privilege, allowing previously protected communications to be used against him, despite denying him access to his former government files on an evenhanded basis.

Because of the fund, Clark said attorneys and other alleged victims now have another avenue to pursue compensation without meeting the higher evidentiary standards required in court, while still having the opportunity to receive a slice of the Anti-Weaponization pie. (RELATED: IRS Weaponization Fund Talks Gumming Up Works To Passing Immigration Enforcement Funding)

Despite lingering uncertainty surrounding the process, Clark called it “magnanimous of President Trump to give up his own claims, which I think are meritorious, in order to create this fund.”