CNN’s Kaitlan Collins confronted Vice President JD Vance on Tuesday over past comments he made about January 6 rioters, pressing him on whether taxpayers should be funding a newly created $1.766 billion Justice Department “Anti-Weaponization Fund.”
The exchange came during a White House press briefing where Vance was repeatedly challenged over the administration’s plan to compensate individuals it claims were victims of government “weaponization,” following President Donald Trump’s decision to drop a $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS.
Collins reminded Vance of his earlier stance on the Capitol attack.
“You previously told me that anyone who assaulted a police officer on January 6th should go to prison. So why not rule out giving them taxpayer-funded money?” she asked.
Vance responded that the administration would take a case-by-case approach.
“What I said is we’re going to look at everything case-by-case,” Vance said. “I don’t rule things out categorically when I know nothing about a person’s individual circumstances.”
Collins immediately pushed back.
“But why not rule it out?” she asked again.
Vance doubled down, arguing that individual circumstances must be reviewed before any decisions are made.
“There are people who I don’t know their individual circumstances,” he said. “Let’s say a person is accused… that they had a judge who mistreated them. I think we should look at those things case-by-case.”
At one point, Collins could be heard noting that several January 6 defendants had already been convicted by juries of their peers for assaulting police officers.
Vance has previously taken a more categorical stance on the issue. In a Fox News interview last year, he said that those who committed violence on January 6 should not be pardoned, while suggesting non-violent participants were in a “gray area.”
The new DOJ fund has already sparked bipartisan skepticism, including from Senate Majority Leader John Thune, who said he was “not a big fan” and questioned its purpose.
According to a Justice Department press release, the program—funded through the federal judgment fund—will review claims of alleged government misconduct and provide monetary relief or formal apologies where appropriate. It will also submit quarterly reports to the Attorney General detailing payouts and outcomes.
Critics argue the initiative opens the door to politically driven compensation decisions tied to Trump-era grievances, while supporters frame it as a corrective mechanism for alleged abuse of power.
The debate now centers on whether the fund represents accountability—or an unprecedented use of taxpayer money in politically charged legal disputes.
About the Author
