Fund and Games: Created in 1956, the Only Thing New About Weaponization Fund is the Nickname
The latest legal battle over President Trump’s so-called “Weaponization Fund” is being framed as a constitutional showdown over executive power. But what if the fund has not only been in place for decades but has already paid out billions of dollars? Why is it subject to judicial review at all? According to Jim Harden, president and CEO of CompassCare, the fund at the center of the controversy is not a new creation of the Trump administration at all. It is the long-established Judgment Fund, created by Congress in 1956 and codified at 31 U.S.C. § 1304.
CLICK HERE TO SEE PAYOUTS FROM THIS FUND SINCE 1956
Order Jim Harden’s New Book, Endure the Rising Christian Persecution: For the Greater Reward
Since his pro-life pregnancy center was firebombed and destroyed in 2022, Harden fit the profile of the perfect candidate for relief from it. Not only that but the statute of limitations on civil litigation expired earlier this month, on the 4th anniversary of the attack. This would not have happened if the Department of Justice prosecuted the known assailants, who are also known by Harden with 90% certainty. Harden didn’t want to file suit until the DOJ indicted the suspects, based largely on legal costs and the risk of defamatory countersuits.
Now, the statute of limitations against the perpetrators in any criminal prosecution runs out next year. Harden should be eligible for relief not just from successful prosecution of the suspects but also for the loss of damages that resulted from the expiration of the statute of limitations on civil litigation.
For decades, the Judgment Fund has served as a permanent, indefinite appropriation allowing the federal government to pay court judgments and settlements without requiring a separate congressional appropriation each time. The Treasury Department itself explains that Congress established it to streamline payments, reduce bureaucratic delays, and limit the accumulation of interest on judgments against the United States.
Congress expanded the authority in 1961 to cover certain settlements negotiated by the Attorney General, and in 1977 removed its $500 million cap entirely, making the fund effectively unlimited. Since its creation, the Judgment Fund has paid out nearly $60 billion, including individual awards far exceeding the amount currently being challenged in court.
One of the most notable examples occurred during the Obama administration, when approximately $1.7 billion was paid to Iran as part of a settlement involving a decades-old dispute over military equipment purchases.
Yet today, critics are describing the current fund as a Trump-created slush fund. Harden argues that characterization ignores both the fund’s history and Congress’s longstanding authorization of its use. He contends that if courts now determine the mechanism itself is unconstitutional, difficult questions follow: What becomes of the tens of billions already paid through the fund over the past seventy years? Would previous recipients be required to return money received under the same legal authority?
The controversy also raises questions about equal treatment under the law. The current fund has been proposed as compensation for Americans who experienced alleged government targeting based on their religious beliefs. Why, Harden asks, is a fund intended to address those claims capped at $1.776 billion when the underlying Judgment Fund operated without a statutory cap for nearly half a century?
Most importantly, was the federal court’s temporary injunction driven by concerns over the structure of the fund itself, or by objections to the specific beneficiaries receiving compensation?
As courts consider the future of the program, Harden argues the debate should focus less on political narratives and more on the legal history, constitutional questions, and equal-protection implications at the heart of the case.
Relevant Article(s):
Trump says ‘I’d pay’ anti-weaponization fund applicants ‘the kind of money they deserve’
Trump defends ‘anti-weaponization’ fund: ‘Great idea’
OPTIONAL Q&A:
- How can critics call this a “Trump Weaponization Fund” when the Judgment Fund has existed since 1956 and has been used by administrations of both parties?
- Why is a compensation fund for Americans alleging religious discrimination being treated differently than countless other payouts made through the same Judgment Fund authority?
- If the Judgment Fund is now being challenged as unconstitutional, what does that mean for the nearly $60 billion already distributed through it since 1956?
- Why did Congress remove the fund’s $500 million cap in 1977 if it did not intend for large-scale claims to be paid through it?
- What legal principle justifies capping compensation for alleged victims of religious discrimination at $1.776 billion when the underlying Judgment Fund itself is unlimited?
- Did the federal judge’s injunction focus on the fund’s legal structure, or on the identity and claims of the people slated to receive compensation?
- How does the government’s obligation to provide equal protection under the 14th Amendment apply when citizens allege they were targeted or denied protection because of their religious beliefs?
- What precedent could be established if courts permit decades of Judgment Fund payouts for other purposes but block its use in cases involving alleged violations of religious liberty?
ABOUT JIM HARDEN…
Rev. Jim Harden, a dedicated pro-life advocate and leader of CompassCare, is known for his outspoken views on medical ethics, executive leadership, and pro-life strategy. With a family of ten children and a strong moral compass, he believes in the adage, “Money follows morality.” Harden has been vocal about perceived corruption in federal law enforcement and public policy in post-Roe America. His predictions about the Dobbs decision in 2018 and the demise of the “Red Wave” in 2022 showcase his deep understanding of the political landscape.
Learn more about CompassCare here:
facebook.com/compasscarecommunity
ABOUT MICHAEL BONNING…
Michael Bonning is the Vice President of Operations at CompassCare, responsible for safety and security at all six locations throughout New York. He was the regional executive in 2022 when the Buffalo medical office location was firebombed by the domestic terrorist organization Jane’s Revenge. Michael also oversaw the miraculous 52 day rebuild of the Buffalo location.
ABOUT AYESHA KREUTZ…
Chaplain Ayesha Kreutz, a spokesman for CompassCare and a Project 21 ambassador, is executive director of Am I Not a Child and a founding member of organizations such as the Frederick Douglass Foundation, Coalition to Protect Kids NY, Frederick Douglass Freedom Alliance and Douglass Leadership Institute. She has led grassroots initiatives, legislative advocacy and political campaigns at the local, state and national levels.
Inspired by Scripture and Frederick Douglass, Ayesha wholeheartedly agrees that sin is a reproach to any people and that righteousness uplifts a nation (Proverbs 14:34). As Douglass stated: “This constitutes my politics, the negative and positive of my politics, and the whole of my politics… It is my duty to do all in my power to infuse this idea into the public mind so that it may be recognized and put into practice by our people.”
With this as her foundation, Ayesha strives to encourage civic engagement as envisioned by the Founding Fathers, as well as teach, inspire and empower people to escape the spiderweb of generational welfare dependency, institutionalized systemic poverty and the culture of death and rejection. www.compasscarecommunity.com and www.nationalcenter.org Project 21 Ambassador
CLICK HERE TO LEARN MORE
TO SCHEDULE AN INTERVIEW, CALL OR TEXT 512-966-0983 OR EMAIL BOOKINGS@SPECIALGUESTS.COM
