A bipartisan flash of anger in Washington offers a rare opening to shut down a long-standing practice that has escaped serious scrutiny for years. Judgment-fund appropriations, which have allowed administrations across party lines to quietly settle lawsuits without public disclosure, deserve to be eliminated once and for all.
The mechanism is simple but troubling. When the government loses a legal case, the judgment fund provides a way to pay settlements while keeping details buried. Both Republican and Democratic administrations have relied on it, turning what should be transparent government spending into something opaque and insulated from regular oversight.
The current moment of cross-party frustration presents an unusual window. Rather than let this moment pass as so many others have, lawmakers should use the momentum to end the practice entirely. The fund has endured for decades because it operates quietly, away from the brightness of normal appropriations debates. Few voters know it exists. Fewer still understand its scope.
Terminating judgment-fund appropriations would force administrations to defend their settlements publicly, seek explicit congressional approval, and answer to voters about how their tax dollars are being spent. It would restore basic accountability to a process that currently happens in the shadows.
The partisan divide on almost every issue makes unanimous agreement rare. But judgment-fund reform commands attention from both sides right now. Congress should not squander this convergence. The tools exist to kill off this practice. What matters is whether lawmakers have the will to use them before outrage fades and the fund returns to its comfortable obscurity.
Author James Rodriguez: "Judgment funds are a bipartisan escape hatch from accountability, and this is the moment to seal it shut."
Comments