CNN legal analyst Elie Honig was stunned by the Trump administration's decision to create a $1.8 billion fund that could be used to compensate right-wing rioters on Jan. 6, 2021, and what that could mean for two police officers who defended the U.S. Capitol that day and have now filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration.The former federal prosecutor told CNN anchor Jake Tapper on Wednesday the lawsuit filed by Officer Harry Dunn of the U.S. Capitol Police and Officer Daniel Hodges of Washington’s Metropolitan Police was aiming to halt the Trump administration from creating a $1.8 billion slush fund, and whether their case will have legal standing."On the one hand, every word that the officers write in this complaint is true," Honig said. "They start off by saying, this is one of the most egregious acts of corruption in presidential history. I think the big legal obstacle, though, is going to be what we call standing, meaning the plaintiff in this case, the officers have to show that they will suffer some concrete injury and that that injury will be caused by the defendant's actions here. The establishment of the funds."Hodges had just spoken with Tapper, describing why he wanted to file the lawsuit — and the death threats he had received in the wake of the complaint."And the theory here is that they will continue to receive them even more," Honig said. "I'm not sure that's going to pass muster for standing, as it's been technically interpreted in the courts, but the immutable truth remains. These officers are heroes. The people who attack them are villains. And Officer Hodges is right when he just said, Congress can stop this if there's political will." Honig emphasized that the officers were making a big move by filing the suit."It would surely be standing to sue the person who injured them. That is unquestionable. But what they're doing here is sort of a legal bank shot," Honig added. "They're saying, OK, it's not about the physical injuries imposed by these people, and it doesn't matter if this is just a corrupt, disgusting scheme. That's true. But for standing, what they're saying is, well, we've been threatened. There's a concern we'll be threatened more. And the reason we'll be threatened more is because of this fund. Now, it's not entirely clear that threats on their own are enough for standing. And it's not clear that that's a direct enough causal relation, I think. And I think if you read the filing, it's clear the lawyers anticipate that standing is going to be a tough issue for them."