BLANCHE Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Raskin, Jamie [D-MD-8]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 9, 2026
Bottom line
This bill aims to prevent potential conflicts of interest and self-dealing by establishing strict judicial oversight and payment prohibitions for any settlement agreements between a sitting or former President and the U.S. government, including those concluded in the past.
What it actually does
This bill prohibits the President (current or former) or any third party acting on their behalf from receiving monetary or in-kind payments from the U.S. government in compromise settlements for claims filed by the President against the United States. It further mandates that any such settlement agreement must be approved by a court through a hearing process, with explicit judicial findings ensuring the agreement is not collusive or fraudulent and is in the interest of justice. The bill applies retroactively to past agreements.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill is essential for upholding the integrity of the presidency and preventing potential abuses of power, particularly concerning financial dealings between a President and the federal government. They contend it closes a critical loophole that could allow a President to benefit financially from claims against the United States, thereby safeguarding against corruption and ensuring public trust in government settlements.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that the bill is overly broad or politically motivated, potentially infringing on a President's individual rights to seek redress for legitimate claims against the government, even if those claims are unrelated to their official duties. They might also contend that existing legal frameworks are sufficient to address potential conflicts of interest, and this bill introduces unnecessary judicial burdens or sets a problematic precedent by treating the President differently from other citizens in legal matters, especially with its retroactive application.
The bill is very short and straightforward, making it highly accessible for any reader to understand its core provisions quickly.
Section 2(a), amending 28 U.S.C. 2414a(a)
Prohibition on Payments to President in Claims Settlements
This provision explicitly forbids the United States from making any payment, whether cash or in-kind, including for damages, reimbursement, or attorneys' fees, to a current or former President, or to any third party at their direction, as part of a compromise settlement for any administrative claim or civil action filed by the President against the United States. This applies even if the President assumed office while the claim was pending.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this prohibition is crucial for preventing self-dealing and conflicts of interest, ensuring that a President cannot use their position or influence to secure financial benefits from the government through settlements. It reinforces the principle that public office should not be used for private gain.
Critics contend
Opponents might argue that this provision unfairly targets Presidents, potentially denying them the same legal recourse and ability to settle legitimate claims against the government that other citizens possess. They might contend it could be seen as a punitive measure rather than a necessary safeguard, especially for claims unrelated to their official duties.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies between preventing potential corruption and ensuring a President's individual rights to legal redress. While preventing self-enrichment is a clear public good, completely barring payments could be seen as an overreach if a President has a genuinely meritorious claim unrelated to their office.
Section 2(a), amending 28 U.S.C. 2414a(b)
Judicial Oversight for Presidential Settlements
This provision mandates that any compromise settlement agreement between a President and the United States is void from the start unless a U.S. court issues an order giving it effect. For a court to do so, it must conduct a hearing, review evidence, and make explicit findings that the parties are genuinely adverse, the action wasn't initiated solely to force a settlement, the U.S. explored defenses in good faith, the agreement is not collusive or fraudulent, and it serves the interest of justice.
Section 2(a), amending 28 U.S.C. 2414a(d)
Applicability to Existing and Future Settlements
This clause specifies that the new requirements and prohibitions regarding compromise settlements between the President and the United States apply to any covered agreement concluded before, on, or after the date the BLANCHE Act of 2026 is enacted. This means it would retroactively invalidate past agreements that do not meet the new judicial review standards and payment prohibitions.