No Political Enemies Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Crow, Jason [D-CO-6]
- Committees
- Ways and Means Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jan 14, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to safeguard First Amendment rights by creating legal avenues to challenge and penalize federal government actions perceived as politically motivated targeting of speech or association.
What it actually does
This bill, titled the "No Political Enemies Act," prohibits federal officials from initiating or directing enforcement claims or government actions against individuals or organizations if those actions are substantially motivated by the covered person's protected speech or participation. It establishes an affirmative defense for targeted persons in enforcement claims, allows civil actions for injunctive relief and damages against officials, and prohibits the use of federal funds for such politically motivated actions. The bill also mandates regular reporting from the Department of Justice to Congress.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill is essential to protect fundamental constitutional rights, particularly freedom of speech and association, from potential abuse of power by the executive branch. They contend it provides crucial legal recourse for individuals and organizations who believe they are being unfairly targeted for their political views, ensuring government actions are based on legitimate grounds rather than political animus.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the bill could severely hamper legitimate law enforcement and regulatory efforts by creating an overly broad "political targeting" defense, making it difficult to prosecute or investigate individuals and groups who engage in illegal activities under the guise of protected speech. They may express concerns that it could be exploited to shield bad actors and undermine the government's ability to enforce laws effectively.
The bill is relatively short but contains significant legal definitions and procedural changes that require careful reading to fully understand its implications.
Section 4
General Prohibition on Political Targeting
This section broadly forbids any federal executive branch official, including the President and Vice President, from starting or directing any investigation, regulation, or enforcement action against a person or organization if the action is significantly driven by that person's constitutionally protected speech or political activities. The intent is to prevent the government from using its power to suppress or punish dissent.
Supporters argue
Supporters contend this provision is a vital safeguard against government overreach and the weaponization of federal agencies, ensuring that political speech is not a basis for official targeting.
Critics contend
Critics might argue this could create a chilling effect on legitimate investigations, as officials may fear being accused of political targeting, potentially hindering national security or criminal enforcement.
Tradeoffs
Balances the protection of free speech against the government's need to enforce laws without undue constraints.
Section 5
Affirmative Defense for Political Targeting
This section establishes a legal defense for any individual or organization facing a federal civil or criminal enforcement claim. If they can show substantial evidence that their protected speech was a motivating factor in the government's action, the court must allow expedited discovery into the government's motivations. The burden then shifts to the government to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the action was justified by legitimate, non-political grounds. If the government fails, the claim is dismissed.
Section 6
Civil Action to Seek an Injunction Against Political Targeting
This section allows individuals and organizations to sue federal officials or agencies in federal court to stop a government action that is substantially motivated by their protected speech. It clarifies that a First Amendment violation is sufficient harm for injunctive relief and that demonstrating a likelihood of success in showing political targeting is enough to establish irreparable harm for temporary relief. It also explicitly grants federal courts jurisdiction and allows injunctions against tax assessments or collections if political targeting of tax-exempt status is proven.
Section 7
Civil Action for Damages for Political Targeting
This section allows individuals to sue federal officials for monetary damages if the official knowingly initiated or directed a government action against them that was substantially motivated by their protected speech, and their constitutional rights were violated. It abrogates most forms of official immunity, except for a "good faith" defense where the speech was clearly not constitutionally protected. It also limits federal indemnification for officials found liable, unless specific conditions are met.
Section 8
Attorneys Fees and Costs for Meritless Political Targeting
This section allows a federal court to order the U.S. government to pay reasonable attorneys' fees and costs to a party that "substantially prevailed" in a proceeding related to a politically targeted government action or enforcement claim. This applies if the party demonstrates the action was substantially motivated by protected speech. It also removes statutory limits on the amount of attorneys' fees that can be awarded in such cases.
Section 9
Prohibition on Use of Funds for Political Targeting
This section amends existing federal law (31 U.S.C. 1341(a)) to explicitly prohibit the obligation or expenditure of federal funds for any government action or enforcement claim that is substantially motivated by a person's protected speech. It also allows any aggrieved person to bring a civil action in federal court to seek injunctive relief against such unlawful spending, granting federal courts jurisdiction over these cases.
Section 10
Regular Reporting to Congress
This section requires the Attorney General to submit quarterly reports to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. These reports must summarize all "covered matters" (significant criminal investigations, prosecutions, or enforcement actions) initiated, approved, declined, or closed, including the basis for decisions made by Department leadership. It also requires immediate notification to Congress if a court rejects or allows discovery into a "prosecutorial declaration" or affects its confidentiality.
Defines "substantially motivated by protected speech or participation" to mean that protected speech is a motivating factor, not necessarily the sole or primary reason. Crucially, it clarifies that an action is *not* substantially motivated solely because it's brought under laws *regulating* political speech (e.g., campaign finance laws, voting rights acts).
Section 3(7)
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice to define terms upfront. However, the carve-out is significant for the bill's practical application, preventing it from inadvertently undermining legitimate enforcement of election and voting rights laws.
Case for: Supporters would argue this carve-out prevents the bill from inadvertently undermining legitimate enforcement of laws designed to ensure fair elections and prevent corruption in political processes. It ensures the bill targets *abuse* of power, not the enforcement of rules for political conduct.
Case against: Critics might argue that even laws regulating political speech can be applied in a politically motivated way, and this carve-out could create a loophole for such targeting under the guise of enforcing those specific statutes.
Estimated impact: Significantly shapes the scope of the bill, determining which types of government actions can be challenged. Without this, the bill could inadvertently paralyze election law enforcement.
Section 7(b) states that a covered federal official shall *not* have immunity in a civil action for damages under this Act, "To the maximum extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States," except for a narrow "good faith" statutory immunity. Section 7(d) limits the ability of the United States to indemnify officials found liable, unless specific conditions (court determines immunity satisfied or indemnification needed for full recovery due to official's inability to pay) are met.
Section 7(b) and 7(d)
Why it matters:These are standard legal mechanisms for creating accountability, but their full impact requires understanding complex legal doctrines like qualified immunity and sovereign immunity.
Case for: Proponents argue these provisions are critical for ensuring genuine accountability for individual officials who knowingly engage in political targeting, as personal liability and limited indemnification provide a strong deterrent against abuse of power.
Case against: Opponents would contend that significantly reducing immunity and limiting indemnification could make federal service less attractive, particularly for roles involving enforcement, and could lead to officials being overly cautious or risk-averse, hindering their ability to perform duties effectively.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant impact on the behavior and recruitment of federal enforcement officials, shifting personal risk.