End Government Pensions for Sexual Abusers Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Malliotakis, Nicole [R-NY-11]
- Committees
- Oversight and Government Reform Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 19, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to prevent Members of Congress convicted of sexual offenses from receiving federal pensions, redirecting those funds to victims where applicable, and strengthening accountability for public officials.
What it actually does
This bill amends federal law to prohibit Members or former Members of Congress, and their beneficiaries, from receiving federal retirement annuities or retired pay if they are convicted of specific sexual offenses listed in Title 18 of the U.S. Code. It also allows for the redirection of these forfeited funds to victims of the offenses through court orders. The denial of benefits applies to offenses committed on or after the bill's enactment date, including foreign convictions certified by the Attorney General, and in cases where an indicted individual willfully remains outside the U.S. to avoid prosecution.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that public servants convicted of egregious sexual offenses should not be entitled to taxpayer-funded retirement benefits. They contend that denying these pensions is a matter of basic justice and accountability, ensuring that individuals who betray public trust in such a profound way do not continue to benefit from their federal service. Furthermore, allowing forfeited funds to go to victims provides a measure of restitution and reinforces the principle that public officials must face legal consequences.
Opponents contend
Opponents, if any, might argue that existing laws already address criminal conduct and that additional legislation targeting specific offenses or groups could create an uneven application of justice. They might also raise concerns about due process, particularly regarding the certification process for foreign convictions, or argue that the focus should be on preventing such crimes rather than solely on post-conviction penalties. However, widespread organized opposition to the core intent of this bill is unlikely.
The bill is concise and clearly written, making it accessible for a quick and informed read by any interested party.
Section 2(a), inserting new 5 U.S.C. 8312a(a)
Forfeiture of Federal Retirement Benefits for Sexual Offenses
This provision states that a Member or former Member of Congress, or their survivors/beneficiaries, will not receive federal retirement annuities or retired pay if the individual is convicted of specific sexual offenses listed in Title 18 of the U.S. Code. This applies to conduct occurring on or after the bill's enactment date, ensuring the law is not applied retroactively to past offenses.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision ensures accountability for public officials who commit heinous crimes, preventing them from benefiting from public service after such a profound breach of trust. It aligns with public expectations for ethical conduct from elected representatives.
Critics contend
No specific organized opposition is typically raised against the core principle of denying pensions for severe criminal misconduct by public officials, especially for sexual offenses. Potential concerns might revolve around the specific list of offenses or the timing of applicability.
Tradeoffs
The bill balances the principle of earned retirement benefits for public service against the public's demand for accountability and justice for severe criminal acts committed by those in positions of power.
Section 2(a), inserting new 5 U.S.C. 8312a(b)
Forfeiture Based on Foreign Convictions
This section extends the denial of benefits to individuals convicted of comparable sexual offenses in foreign countries. The Attorney General must certify that the foreign conviction meets U.S. due process standards and that the conduct would be an offense under U.S. law, occurring after the bill's enactment. The individual can seek review of this certification in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, ensuring a mechanism for challenging the Attorney General's determination.
Section 2(a), inserting new 5 U.S.C. 8312a(c)
Forfeiture for Fleeing Prosecution
This provision denies retirement benefits to a Member or former Member of Congress who is indicted for a covered sexual offense and willfully remains outside the United States for more than one year, knowing of the indictment. The denial lasts until the indictment is dismissed, the individual returns and charges are dismissed, or they are found not guilty after trial, ensuring that evasion of justice does not go unpunished.
Section 2(a), inserting new 5 U.S.C. 8312a(d)
Redirection of Forfeited Benefits to Victims
This section mandates that if an individual's annuity or retired pay is forfeited under this bill, the administering agency must pay amounts from those forfeited funds to a victim of the offense. This payment is made if and to the extent provided for in a court order of restitution or a similar garnishment judgment related to the offense. The total amount paid to victims cannot exceed the forfeited amount, and contributions are not refunded if paid to victims, prioritizing victim compensation.
This specifies the exact federal criminal statutes for sexual offenses that trigger the forfeiture of retirement benefits. These include offenses related to sexual exploitation of children, sexual abuse, and human trafficking, covering a broad range of severe crimes.
Section 2(a), new 5 U.S.C. 8312a(a)(1)(A)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for precision. Rather than broadly defining 'sexual offenses,' the bill refers to existing criminal statutes to ensure legal clarity and avoid ambiguity in enforcement. It is not intended to be evasive, but rather to provide specific legal boundaries.
Case for: Proponents argue that referencing specific statutes ensures legal certainty and avoids subjective interpretations of what constitutes a 'sexual offense,' providing clear boundaries for the application of the law and preventing arbitrary enforcement.
Case against: Critics might argue that the technical referencing makes the bill less transparent to the general public, requiring specialized legal knowledge to fully understand its scope and the specific crimes it targets.
Estimated impact: This list defines the universe of crimes that would trigger the forfeiture, directly impacting the number of potential cases where benefits could be denied and the specific types of misconduct addressed by the bill.