Critics of President Donald Trump’s so-called “anti-weaponization fund” are overlooking a congressionally authorized payment mechanism for judgments and settlements that presidents have used for nearly 70 years, according to potential claimants and government experts.

The federal Judgment Fund, (31 U.S.C. § 1304), is a permanent, indefinite appropriation that has been used to pay certain court judgments, awards, and compromise settlements against the federal government that was passed in 1956 and signed into law by former President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Rev. Jim Harden, president and CEO of CompassCare, a network of pro-life pregnancy centers in New York state, told Newsmax that Christian pro-life organizations such as his should not be excluded from any lawful restitution process for victims of alleged government targeting or unequal protection.

CompassCare’s medical office in Amherst, New York, near Buffalo, was firebombed and vandalized during the Biden administration in June 2022, during a wave of attacks against pro-life organizations following the leak of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade.

“What critics are calling a Trump slush fund is actually tied to a legal mechanism Congress created nearly 70 years ago,” he said. “The nickname is new. The fund is not and should not be portrayed as something invented by Trump.

“The government cannot have one standard for politically acceptable victims and another standard for pro-life Christians.”

The debate over the issue intensified after the Department of Justice announced an “Anti-Weaponization Fund” in connection with a settlement in Trump’s lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of information regarding his tax returns.

Critics charged that the proposed fund could be used to compensate Trump allies with insufficient oversight.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche later told lawmakers the Justice Department was “not moving forward” with the fund, following political backlash and legal challenges.

Still, supporters of the concept say the broader issue remains unresolved: whether Americans who claim they were targeted by government agencies because of their speech, politics, or religious beliefs should have access to the same settlement mechanisms used in other federal disputes.

Harden turned over surveillance footage of the vandalism to the FBI that captured one suspect throwing a Molotov cocktail into the building and the second person driving a getaway car, with the license plate clearly visible.

Four years later, there are still no prosecutions despite the more than half a million dollars in damage, two firefighters being injured, and the FBI reportedly having the names of the two suspects.

The Treasury Department describes the Judgment Fund as a way to pay court judgments and compromise settlements of lawsuits against the government when payment is legally available from the fund and cannot legally be made from another source of agency funds.

Opponents of the Justice Department’s initiative have argued that the proposed program raised separate concerns, including executive-branch discretion, congressional spending authority, and the possibility that politically connected claimants could receive preferential treatment.

California Democrat Rep. Mike Levin denounced the proposal, introducing an amendment aimed at preventing federal elected officials from receiving payouts from the Judgment Fund unless the money was distributed through a final court judgment or court-issued process.

Levin said the plan would move nearly $1.8 billion into what he called a “slush fund” benefiting Trump allies.

“Now that it’s been used twice, unless Congress steps in, I have no doubt this scheme will be used again by another administration,” said Paul Figley, a former DOJ staffer about the Federal Judgment Fund. “It’s bad government; it’s not how our system was set up.

Congress has the power of the purse. Congress, rather than the executive, has the authority to create and fund programs.

The executive branch should not have its own source of funds. The Judgment Fund should not be used as an executive branch piggy bank.”

However, Craig DeRoche, president and CEO of Family Policy Alliance, defended the use of settlement mechanisms to compensate Americans harmed by alleged government weaponization.

DeRoche, a former Michigan House speaker elected at age 34, leads a national conservative Christian organization connected to Focus on the Family.

“The so-called anti-weaponization settlement is squarely within the practice of congressionally appointed DOJ practices since 1956, and, like all things government, what was meant for good has been used for bad purposes,” DeRoche told Newsmax.

The Judgment Fund has paid out billions of dollars in judgments and settlements over the decades.

One widely publicized Judgment Fund payout was the Obama administration’s transfer of millions in palletized cash to Iran.

“Obama was the king of sue-and-settle schemes that were used to fund an entire infrastructure of NGOs,” DeRoche said. “What President Trump was pursuing with the anti-weaponization fund was the opposite of what President Obama did.”