Flint Man Seeks $15.1 Million From Trump's Anti Weaponization Fund, Alleging Government Weaponization After Jan. 6
Supporters call it justice. Critics call it unprecedented. A Michigan man's claim could become an early test of Trump's new fund.
A Flint man who was charged in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot is seeking more than $15 million from the federal government, arguing he was harmed by what he describes as the weaponization of federal law enforcement.
The claim by Isaac Anthony Thomas comes as President Trump faces both praise and criticism over a new $1.776 billion Anti Weaponization Fund created by the Trump administration to compensate Americans who claim they were unfairly targeted by the federal government.
Thomas filed the claim with the FBI through his attorney, Steven Metcalf. The filing seeks $15.1 million and alleges federal investigators and prosecutors withheld evidence that could have helped his defense. The allegations have not been proven in court.
Click here to watch my previous interview with Thomas.
According to the claim, Thomas was 18 years old when he attended the Jan. 6 rally and events at the U.S. Capitol. He alleges the FBI failed to disclose information about the presence of plainclothes agents in the crowd and that the information could have supported an entrapment defense. The filing cites a 2025 FBI report to Congress and argues that federal authorities withheld potentially exculpatory information during the prosecution.
The claim further alleges Thomas spent approximately six months in pretrial detention, including time in solitary confinement, and suffered emotional, psychological and reputational harm. It also claims some of his personal property and legal materials were destroyed while incarcerated.
Thomas is seeking $10 million in compensatory damages, $5 million in punitive damages and $100,000 for property damage.
The filing states that Thomas became publicly labeled a “J6er” and an “insurrectionist,” causing long lasting damage to his reputation and future opportunities. His attorneys argue that federal prosecutors overreached and that Thomas, who had no prior criminal record, became caught up in what they describe as a highly politicized prosecution.
Thomas was later among the Jan. 6 defendants who received a full pardon from President Trump after Trump returned to office. While the pardon eliminated the criminal consequences of the case, Thomas argues it did not compensate him for what he describes as years of lost freedom, emotional distress and damage to his reputation.
The claim arrives as the Justice Department begins implementing the Anti Weaponization Fund.
The Justice Department announced the fund earlier this year as part of a settlement involving President Trump, members of his family, the Trump Organization and the Internal Revenue Service. The dispute stemmed from the disclosure of Trump’s tax return information.
Under the settlement, Trump and the other plaintiffs agreed not to receive money personally. Instead, the settlement directed approximately $1.776 billion into a compensation fund for individuals who claim they were harmed by government weaponization.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche defended the fund, saying the federal government should never be used against Americans because of politics, ideology or personal beliefs. Justice Department officials say the fund will be open to claimants regardless of political affiliation and will include oversight measures, audits and anti fraud protections.
Supporters of the fund argue that Americans deserve a way to seek compensation when government agencies abuse their authority. They point to allegations involving politically motivated investigations, selective enforcement and government misconduct. Supporters say the fund provides a mechanism for individuals to present evidence and seek restitution if they can demonstrate they were harmed.
Critics argue the fund is unprecedented and raises serious legal questions.
Legal experts interviewed by PBS NewsHour questioned whether the executive branch should be able to create such a large compensation program without direct congressional approval. Some scholars have warned that the fund could become a vehicle for politically connected claimants seeking taxpayer money.
Meanwhile, CBS News reported that dozens of former federal judges have asked a court to examine the settlement that created the fund. The judges argued there are questions about whether the settlement was proper and whether it effectively redirected federal funds without sufficient judicial review.
The Justice Department has rejected those claims, calling the objections meritless and defending the legality of the settlement.
The controversy also extends to Jan. 6 defendants themselves.
Supporters of Thomas and other Jan. 6 defendants argue many were overcharged, subjected to lengthy pretrial detention and caught up in politically driven prosecutions. They contend some defendants were denied access to evidence that could have aided their defense and deserve compensation if misconduct occurred.
Critics strongly disagree. They note that many Jan. 6 defendants either pleaded guilty or were convicted based on evidence of their own actions at the Capitol. Critics argue that receiving a presidential pardon does not establish innocence or prove government misconduct. They also question whether taxpayer dollars should be used to compensate individuals involved in an event that disrupted the certification of the 2020 presidential election.
For Thomas, the new fund could provide a pathway to financial recovery if federal officials ultimately approve his claim.
For the nation, the dispute represents a larger battle over whether the federal government has unfairly targeted certain Americans or whether the new compensation fund itself represents an unprecedented use of executive power and taxpayer resources.