CLEAR Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Hageman, Harriet M. [R-WY-At Large]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 24, 2026
Bottom line
The bill significantly increases public and congressional oversight of federal settlement payments and litigation practices, particularly targeting perceived 'sue-and-settle' abuses.
What it actually does
This bill mandates increased public transparency for payments made from the federal Judgment Fund, requiring the Department of the Treasury to publish detailed, searchable information online about claims, responsible agencies, and legal counsel. It also directs the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct annual reviews and report to Congress on the use of 'sue-and-settle' tactics by federal agencies, where agencies agree in litigation to alter or abandon policies.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue this legislation is crucial for enhancing government accountability and transparency, allowing taxpayers to understand how their money is spent on legal liabilities and preventing federal agencies from bypassing public rulemaking processes through litigation settlements.
Opponents contend
Critics might contend that the extensive disclosure requirements could compromise privacy or sensitive government operations, potentially chilling legitimate settlement negotiations. Concerns may also be raised about the administrative burden on agencies and the broad definition of 'sue-and-settle' tactics, which could impede efficient dispute resolution.
The bill is very concise and clearly written, making it highly accessible for a reader to understand its provisions quickly.
Section 2(1), amending 31 U.S.C. 1304(d)
Enhanced Public Transparency for Judgment Fund Payments
This provision requires the Department of the Treasury to make specific information about Judgment Fund payments publicly available on a website within 30 days of a payment. The disclosed information must include the name of the agency whose actions led to the claim, the plaintiff or claimant's name, their counsel's name, the amounts paid for principal liability and ancillary costs (like attorney fees and interest), and a brief description of the facts of the claim. This aims to provide greater public insight into federal legal liabilities.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is crucial for government transparency and accountability, allowing taxpayers to see how their money is spent on legal liabilities and holding agencies responsible for their actions.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that disclosing detailed information, especially claimant names and case facts, could compromise privacy or reveal sensitive government operations, potentially making settlements more difficult to achieve.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the public's right to know against potential privacy concerns for claimants and operational sensitivities for government agencies.
Section 2(1), amending 31 U.S.C. 1304(d)
Categorized and Searchable Payment Data
Beyond individual payment disclosures, this section mandates that the public website must tabulate the total number of payments per month, including settlements, and make this data searchable. Users will be able to search by specific agency, plaintiff/claimant, and counsel (including their firm). The data must also be disaggregated by total amounts paid each month for principal payments, attorney's fees, court costs, and interest, facilitating trend analysis and oversight.
Section 2(2), adding 31 U.S.C. 1304(e)
Annual GAO Report on Sue-and-Settle Tactics
This section directs the Comptroller General of the United States (GAO) to conduct an annual review of settlements made from the Judgment Fund, specifically focusing on 'sue-and-settle tactics.' The GAO must submit a report to Congress identifying agencies that most frequently engage in these tactics, average settlement amounts, and common trends. 'Sue-and-settle tactics' are defined as circumstances where a federal entity agrees in litigation to withdraw, rescind, or abandon a policy, regulation, rule, or contract, or not to enforce a statute or regulation.
Section 2(2), adding 31 U.S.C. 1304(f)
Protection for Disclosing Individuals
This provision establishes that the identity of any individual who discloses information related to a payment made under the Judgment Fund may not be revealed. This aims to provide protection for potential whistleblowers or informants who come forward with information that contributes to the transparency goals of the bill, safeguarding them from potential retaliation or unwanted public exposure.
The effective date for the new transparency requirements is stated as 'Beginning not later than the date that is 60 days after the date of enactment of the John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act.'
Section 2(1), amending 31 U.S.C. 1304(d)(1)
Why it matters:This appears to be a legislative drafting error, possibly a copy-paste from an earlier bill or a placeholder that was not updated. It is unlikely to be intentionally evasive but rather an oversight.
Case for: If interpreted literally, it means the transparency requirements would apply retroactively from 2019, which would be a very strong push for immediate transparency. However, this is almost certainly not the intended effect.
Case against: If interpreted literally, it creates an impossible or nonsensical effective date for a bill introduced in 2026, making the implementation timeline unclear or requiring immediate (and likely impossible) compliance for past payments. It would likely need a technical correction to specify an effective date relative to the enactment of *this* Act.
Estimated impact: Creates significant ambiguity regarding the actual start date of the transparency requirements, potentially delaying implementation until a correction is made or an official interpretation is issued.