No Gratuities for Governing Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Goldman, Daniel S. [D-NY-10]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 26, 2025
Bottom line
The bill expands federal anti-corruption law by introducing a new offense for illegal gratuities and stiffening penalties for existing bribery crimes related to federal funds.
What it actually does
This bill amends Section 666 of title 18, United States Code, which addresses theft or bribery concerning programs receiving federal funds. It increases the maximum prison sentence for the existing bribery offense from 10 to 15 years. Crucially, it creates a new federal offense for illegal gratuities, criminalizing the giving or receiving of anything of value of $1,000 or more for or because of an official act by an agent of an organization or government receiving federal funds, where the transaction involves $5,000 or more, with a penalty of up to 2 years imprisonment.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill strengthens anti-corruption efforts by explicitly criminalizing illegal gratuities, which can undermine public trust and create an appearance of impropriety even without a direct quid pro quo. They contend that the new offense closes a loophole in existing bribery laws, while increased penalties for bribery serve as a stronger deterrent against the misuse of federal funds and protect taxpayer money.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that the new gratuity offense could be overly broad, potentially criminalizing actions that are not direct bribery but rather common courtesies or gifts, leading to federal overreach. They may also contend that increasing penalties for existing offenses without clear evidence of their ineffectiveness is unnecessary and could contribute to disproportionate sentencing.
The bill is very short and easy to read, allowing ample time for a thorough evaluation of its provisions.
Section 2(1), 2(2)
Increased Penalties for Existing Bribery Offense
This section renumbers existing subsections of 18 U.S.C. 666 and increases the maximum prison sentence for the existing offense of theft or bribery concerning programs receiving federal funds. Specifically, the maximum imprisonment for an agent who corruptly solicits, demands, accepts, or agrees to accept anything of value intending to be influenced in an official act, or for embezzling/stealing property, is raised from 10 years to 15 years.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that increasing the maximum penalty for serious corruption offenses involving federal funds reflects the gravity of such crimes and serves as a stronger deterrent, thereby enhancing public trust and protecting taxpayer resources.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that existing penalties are already substantial and that further increases may not significantly improve deterrence while potentially contributing to issues of mass incarceration or disproportionate sentencing.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the desire for stronger deterrence against concerns regarding the severity and effectiveness of criminal sentences.
Section 2(3)
Creation of New Illegal Gratuities Offense
This section inserts a new subsection (b) into 18 U.S.C. 666, establishing a new federal crime for illegal gratuities. It criminalizes knowingly and purposefully giving or receiving anything of value of $1,000 or more for or because of an official act performed by an agent of an organization or government receiving federal funds, where the business transaction involves $5,000 or more. This offense carries a penalty of up to 2 years imprisonment and does not require proof of a prior agreement or corrupt intent to influence a specific act, distinguishing it from bribery.
The bill's new gratuity offense, and the existing bribery offense, apply only if the organization, government, or agency involved receives Federal benefits in excess of $10,000 in a one-year period. This threshold defines the federal jurisdictional hook for the entire statute.
Section 2(4) and existing 18 U.S.C. 666(c) (formerly (b))
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for amending existing statutes; the bill only modifies specific parts and relies on the unchanged portions for context and definitions. It is not necessarily evasive.
Case for: Supporters would argue that relying on existing statutory language ensures consistency and avoids redundant text, making the amendment concise and efficient.
Case against: Critics might argue that for clarity, especially when introducing a new offense, the full scope of applicability, including jurisdictional thresholds, should be more explicitly stated or summarized within the amending language itself to ensure all readers understand the bill's reach.
Estimated impact: This threshold significantly limits the scope of the bill to entities with substantial federal funding, preventing it from applying to smaller, unfunded local entities and focusing federal enforcement on areas of direct federal financial interest.