To amend title 28, United States Code, to prohibit Presidents and Vice Presidents from receiving damages payments from the United States, and for other purposes.
- Sponsor
- Rep. Raskin, Jamie [D-MD-8]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 15, 2026
Bottom line
H.R. 8309 aims to prevent current and former high-ranking executive officials from profiting from claims against the U.S. government, introducing strict limitations and transparency measures to enhance public trust.
What it actually does
This bill amends title 28 of the U.S. Code to restrict current and certain former Presidents, Vice Presidents, their spouses, dependent children, and related trusts from receiving specific financial payments from the United States. It prohibits current covered individuals from recovering damages or attorney's fees through settlement agreements and imposes guardrails on court-awarded damages, requiring independent counsel. For former covered individuals, it establishes specific transparency and oversight requirements for claims and settlements.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill enhances public trust by preventing potential conflicts of interest and the appearance of impropriety when high-ranking officials seek financial compensation from the government they serve or recently served. They contend it ensures fairness and prevents abuse of power by establishing independent oversight and transparency for such claims, thereby safeguarding taxpayer interests.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that the bill could infringe upon the fundamental right of any citizen, including former officeholders, to seek legal redress for legitimate grievances against the government. They might contend that it creates a two-tiered justice system where Presidents and Vice Presidents are unfairly penalized, potentially deterring qualified individuals from seeking office due to the loss of certain legal protections or efficient dispute resolution mechanisms.
The bill text is concise and relatively easy to read, allowing for a quick understanding of its core provisions.
Sec. 2417(a)
Definition of 'Covered Individual'
This section broadly defines who is subject to the bill's restrictions. It includes the sitting President and Vice President, their spouses and dependent children, and any trusts or legal entities they own or control. It also extends to a former President if their former Vice President is currently the President, ensuring continuity of restrictions in certain political transitions to prevent circumvention.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that a broad definition is necessary to prevent circumvention of the bill's intent, ensuring that individuals closely tied to the executive office cannot indirectly benefit from claims against the government.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that the definition is overly broad, potentially impacting family members or trusts that are not directly involved in the official's conduct, and could lead to unintended consequences for their personal finances.
Tradeoffs
Balances the need for comprehensive coverage to prevent loopholes against concerns about overreach into private affairs of family members or entities.
Sec. 2417(b)
Ban on Settlement Payments for Current Covered Individuals
This provision explicitly forbids current Presidents, Vice Presidents, and their defined associates from receiving any form of payment, monetary or in-kind, from the U.S. government as a result of administrative claims, civil actions, or settlements. It also prevents them from directing such payments to others, aiming to eliminate any financial benefit from claims against the government while in office.
Sec. 2417(c)
Ban on Filing Administrative Claims
This section prevents any covered individual from initiating administrative claims against the U.S. government for financial compensation, including damages or attorney's fees. This complements the ban on settlement payments by stopping such claims at the initial administrative stage, further restricting avenues for financial recovery while in office.
Sec. 2417(e)
Restrictions on Court-Awarded Damages and Independent Counsel Requirement
For civil actions brought by covered individuals against the U.S., this provision limits any potential court awards strictly to actual or compensatory damages, excluding punitive or other forms of damages. Crucially, it mandates that such damages can only be awarded if the covered individual agrees to the court appointing an independent counsel to represent the defending agency, ensuring an impartial and robust defense.
Sec. 2417(g)
Special Rules for Claims by Former Covered Individuals
This section outlines a specific process for former Presidents, Vice Presidents, and their related entities to pursue claims against the U.S. government. It requires the defending agency to appoint an expert career employee to lead the review, explicitly bars any executive branch official appointed by a covered individual from participating, and mandates public disclosure in the Federal Register of any settlement terms or payments. Furthermore, copies of claims and resolutions must be submitted to Congress.
Sec. 2417(h)
Penalties for Violations
This section establishes severe penalties for non-compliance with the bill's provisions. Covered individuals who willfully violate the ban on settlement payments or knowingly violate the ban on filing administrative claims face disgorgement of payments, civil penalties up to $1 million or the total payment amount, and/or up to 5 years imprisonment. Federal officers or employees who willfully cause a department or agency to violate the administrative processing ban face civil penalties up to $50,000 and/or up to 6 months imprisonment.
Sec. 2417(i)
Statute of Limitations and Tolling Provisions
This provision sets a 10-year statute of limitations for prosecuting or imposing civil penalties for violations of this act. Crucially, it also 'tolls' (pauses) the statute of limitations for any claim a covered individual might have against the United States. This means the clock on their ability to file a claim stops while they are in office and resumes only after their term expires, ensuring they don't lose the right to pursue legitimate claims due to the restrictions imposed during their tenure.
The definition of 'covered individual' includes a 'former President if the former Vice President of the former President is President' and 'a trust (or a trustee acting on behalf of a trust) or any other legal vehicle or entity established, or serving, for the benefit of, or owned or controlled by, an individual described in paragraphs (1) through (4)'.
Sec. 2417(a)(3) and (5)
Why it matters:The inclusion of these specific conditions is likely a deliberate attempt to prevent sophisticated circumvention of the bill's intent, addressing complex scenarios that might not be immediately obvious.
Case for: Proponents would argue that these detailed inclusions are essential to prevent loopholes, ensuring that the spirit of the law, which aims to prevent conflicts of interest, cannot be undermined by indirect means or specific political transitions.
Case against: Critics might argue that such highly specific and conditional definitions could lead to unforeseen legal complexities or unintended impacts on individuals and entities far removed from the direct actions of the President or Vice President.
Estimated impact: Broadens the scope of individuals and entities subject to the bill's restrictions, particularly in specific political succession scenarios and financial arrangements.
This section states that the bill's provisions apply to any request for, processing of, or recovery of payments occurring after the date of enactment, regardless of when the related claim or cause of action arose.
Sec. 2417(j)
Why it matters:Applicability clauses are standard legislative practice, but this specific wording ensures immediate and broad effect, preventing individuals from claiming exemption for ongoing disputes that originated before the law's passage.
Case for: Proponents argue this ensures the bill's immediate effectiveness in preventing potential conflicts of interest, even for claims that originated prior to its passage, thereby closing any immediate loopholes.
Case against: Critics might argue that applying the rules to claims that arose before enactment could be seen as retroactively changing the rules of engagement for existing legal disputes, potentially creating unfairness for individuals who initiated claims under different legal expectations.
Estimated impact: Ensures that the bill's restrictions apply to any current or future payment processes, even if the underlying legal issue predates the law, thereby having an immediate and comprehensive effect.