Thomas Tiffany

Gubernatorial candidate Tom Tiffany said some Jan. 6 Capitol attack defendants could "possibly" be owed restitution.

Tiffany specified that anyone who harmed a law enforcement officer should not receive compensation.

The payments would come from a new $1.8 billion federal "anti-weaponization" fund.

The fund was created from a settlement of a lawsuit filed by former President Trump and his family against the IRS.

MADISON – Defendants convicted in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol could "possibly" be owed restitution from the U.S. government, except those who harmed law enforcement officers, Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Tiffany said Tuesday.

Tiffany said he is "still studying the details" and is asking President Donald Trump's administration for more information about a federal $1.8 billion "anti-weaponization" fund administered by the administration under the settlement of a $10 billion lawsuit filed by the president and his family against the IRS.

If the harm is "significant enough," it may be appropriate for people who say they were unfairly targeted by the federal government to receive payouts from the fund, he said at a WisPolitics Q&A event on May 26.

"I would want to take a look at, what was the harm that was done to those victims? If it's significant enough, perhaps they should receive compensation," Tiffany said when asked if he supports the government funding payments to individuals Trump and his allies say were unfairly targeted by prosecutors in past Democratic administrations.

Under acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, the U.S. Department of Justice announced earlier this month it would offer $1.776 billion to "victims of lawfare and weaponization," which could include defendants from the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

In Wisconsin, Trump's former attorney, Jim Troupis, is seeking $3.2 million from the fund over an ongoing prosecution against him related to his alleged role in a scheme to have Republicans in battleground states pretend to be electors for Trump in an effort to persuade then-Vice President Mike Pence to stop the certification of Biden's 2020 victory over Trump.

The creation of the "anti-weaponization" fund has drawn bipartisan backlash in Washington, D.C.

Asked specifically about the possibility of those convicted in the Jan. 6 attack receiving government payments, Tiffany said, "If they were illegitimately harmed, then possibly they should."

"Where I draw the line in regards to this is anyone that harmed a law enforcement official should be charged with a crime, and you should do the time if you did harm to a law enforcement official," he said.

In a post on X, former Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes, one of several candidates in the Democratic gubernatorial primary, responded to Tiffany's comments: "I didn't need any more details to know that a $1.8 billion taxpayer-funded slush fund for January 6th rioters is a bad idea."

In announcing the fund, the Justice Department said there are no partisan requirements to file a claim and didn’t detail who would receive payments. However, Trump has previously alluded to what kinds of cases he views as involving “warfare” or “weaponization” under the Biden administration.

These include two federal cases brought against him and others for mishandling classified documents and attempting to overturn the 2020 presidential election results and the more than 1,500 cases brought forward against the president's supporters for allegedly committing crimes when storming the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

The fund is the result of the settlement of a lawsuit brought forward by Trump, his two oldest sons and the Trump Organization in January, which alleged that by not establishing a monitoring or screening system to prevent the release of information, the IRS embarrassed and “unfairly tarnished” their business reputations.

The contractor who originally leaked Trump’s tax returns in 2019 was sentenced to five years in prison in 2024 for disclosing thousands of returns.

Tiffany, who represents the state's 7th Congressional District and sits on the House Judiciary Committee, said he thinks it's more important to ensure federal officials who have abused their positions face legal consequences.

"Maybe some people are due compensation. What I think is more important is those who have abused their authority in a federal agency, that they should be charged and they should be prosecuted, if they have abused their authority," Tiffany said.

Jessie Opoien and Clara Strecker can be reached at [email protected] and [email protected].

(This story was updated to add new information.)