The Capitol LedgerEvery move in Congress, on the record
HomeBillsRecordsLedger AI

The Capitol Ledger

Built from the Congressional Record and Congress.gov. Every summary links to its source.

AboutFAQFeedbackTerms of ServicePrivacy Policy
Follow us onlineInstagram

Summaries are AI-generated from primary sources. Verify anything important against the original record.

The Capitol Ledger

Built from the Congressional Record and Congress.gov. Every summary links to its source.

The projectAboutFAQFeedback
LegalTerms of ServicePrivacy Policy
Follow us onlineInstagram

Summaries are AI-generated from primary sources. Verify anything important against the original record.

All bills
H.R. 9222·119th Congress·Introduced Jun 9, 2026

Drain the Swamp Act

IntroducedOmnibus
View bill text
Sponsor
Rep. Landsman, Greg [D-OH-1]
Committees
Rules Committee (primary)
Last action
Jun 9, 2026

Bottom line

The bill aims to fundamentally restructure ethical conduct, accountability, and electoral integrity across all branches of the U.S. government through a wide array of interconnected, yet distinct, legislative and constitutional reforms.

What it actually does

This omnibus bill, titled the "Drain the Swamp Act," proposes sweeping reforms across multiple areas of federal government ethics, campaign finance, judicial structure, and electoral processes. It seeks to ban stock trading and prediction market participation for high-ranking officials, implement pay suspensions for Congress during shutdowns, establish term limits for both Congress and the Supreme Court, enhance Supreme Court ethics, curb presidential power abuses (pardons, emoluments, statute of limitations), reform campaign finance by overturning Citizens United and banning dark money/corporate PACs, mandate nonpartisan redistricting, strengthen voting rights, restrict government pensions for felony convictions, and limit presidential lawsuits.

Proponents argue

Supporters argue that these comprehensive reforms are essential to restore public trust in government, reduce corruption, enhance democratic participation, and ensure that elected officials and judges are accountable to the public rather than special interests or personal gain. They contend that the current system is rife with conflicts of interest, undue influence, and procedural loopholes that undermine the integrity of American democracy, making a broad, multi-faceted approach necessary.

Opponents contend

Critics might argue that the bill represents an overreach of federal power into state electoral processes and judicial independence, potentially leading to unintended consequences or politicizing non-partisan roles. Concerns could be raised about the constitutionality of certain provisions, such as congressional term limits or Supreme Court restructuring, and the practical implications of such extensive changes on governmental efficiency and stability.

The bill is exceptionally long and covers a vast array of complex legal and constitutional changes, requiring several hours for a thorough understanding. The time typically allotted for public review of such an omnibus measure would likely be insufficient for a comprehensive assessment by the public or even many legislators.

Sec. 102, Title I

Ban on Stock Trading and Ownership for Covered Individuals

prominently featuredmoderately complex

This provision prohibits the President, Vice President, Members of Congress, Supreme Court Justices, and their dependent children and spouses from directly or indirectly owning or trading "covered investments" (securities, commodities, futures, derivatives). They must divest existing covered investments within 90-180 days. Exceptions exist for widely held diversified funds, U.S. Treasury/state/municipal bonds, small businesses, and a spouse/dependent child's primary occupation trades if not owned by the covered individual. Violations incur a 10% fee of the investment's value and disgorgement of profits.

GroupImpactMechanismScale
GroupPresident, VP, Members of Congress, Supreme Court Justices, their spouses and dependent childrenImpactRestricts personal financial investment activitiesMechanismDirect prohibition and mandatory divestmentScaleApplies to all current and future covered individuals
GroupFinancial marketsImpactPotential shift in investment patterns for a small but influential groupMechanismReduced participation by covered individuals in specific market segmentsScaleLimited, as the number of covered individuals is small relative to total market participants

Supporters argue

Supporters argue this ban eliminates conflicts of interest, prevents insider trading, and restores public trust by ensuring officials prioritize public service over personal financial gain. It addresses concerns about officials profiting from legislative or policy decisions.

Critics contend

Critics might argue that such a broad ban is overly restrictive, discourages qualified individuals from seeking public office, and infringes on personal financial freedoms. They might suggest that existing disclosure laws and blind trusts are sufficient.

Tradeoffs

Balances public trust and conflict-of-interest prevention against individual financial freedom and the potential to deter public service.

Sec. 202-203, Title II

Suspension of Congressional Pay During Debt Limit Breach or Government Shutdown

prominently featuredstraightforward

This title mandates a reduction in the annual pay of Members of Congress for each day the public debt limit is reached or a government shutdown occurs. For the 119th Congress, salaries would be withheld in an escrow account and released at the end of the Congress, to comply with the 27th Amendment. For subsequent Congresses, pay is directly reduced.

Sec. 302, Title III

18-Year Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices

prominently featuredmoderately complex

This title establishes 18-year term limits for Supreme Court Justices. The President would nominate one justice in the first and third years after a presidential election. Current justices would transition to senior status in order of longest service as new justices are appointed. Senior justices could serve temporarily if the court falls below its full complement.

Sec. 401, Title IV

Proposed Constitutional Amendment for Congressional Term Limits

prominently featuredstraightforward

This title proposes a constitutional amendment to limit Representatives to 9 terms (18 years) and Senators to 3 terms (18 years). Terms served before ratification would not count towards these limits.

Sec. 502-503, Title V

Establishment of Supreme Court Ethics and Investigative Offices

prominently featuredmoderately complex

This title establishes an Office of Ethics Counsel and an Office of Investigative Counsel within the Supreme Court. The Ethics Counsel would advise justices on ethics matters, provide training, and report annually to Congress. The Investigative Counsel would review and investigate ethics complaints against justices, with subpoena power, and report findings to the Chief Justice (or senior associate justice for complaints against the Chief Justice).

Sec. 602-604, Subtitle A, Title VI

Congressional Oversight and Restrictions on Presidential Pardon Power

prominently featuredmoderately complex

This subtitle requires the Attorney General to submit materials to Congress within 30 days of a pardon for "covered offenses" (those involving the President, relatives, political appointees, campaign staff, or specific obstruction/perjury charges). It expands bribery statutes to include pardons/commutations and explicitly voids presidential self-pardons.

Sec. 612-614, Subtitle B, Title VI

Tolling Statute of Limitations and Forfeiture of Benefits for President/VP

prominently featuredmoderately complex

This subtitle tolls the statute of limitations for federal criminal offenses committed by a President or Vice President during or prior to their tenure. It also amends federal law to include the President, VP, and Cabinet members in prohibitions against conflicts of interest in government contracts. Furthermore, it mandates the forfeiture of benefits for former Presidents convicted of a felony committed during or after their time in office, and requires repayment of benefits received between initial and final conviction.

Sec. 623-632, Subtitle C, Title VI

Strengthening Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses, Disclosure, and Enforcement

prominently featuredhighly complex

This subtitle broadly defines "emolument" and "Presidentially-owned entity" to prohibit the President, VP, and other senior federal officials from accepting foreign emoluments without congressional consent, extending this prohibition to two years post-employment. It creates a civil cause of action for Congress to enforce foreign emoluments violations and mandates extensive disclosures of foreign and domestic emoluments for the President and other officials. It also prohibits payments to the President from federal/state funds (with exceptions) and from individuals receiving government positions or clemency, requiring disclosures and return of funds.

Sec. 642, Subtitle D, Title VI

Presidential Oversight of Attorney General in Criminal Prosecutions

prominently featuredmoderately complex

This subtitle requires the Attorney General to submit a sworn statement to the court if the government seeks dismissal of a criminal prosecution against the President or President-elect, attesting whether the dismissal was ordered by the President/President-elect. The court can only grant dismissal if it's appropriate and in the interest of justice, considering potential bad faith or pretext. It also mandates a three-judge court for such actions and requires the DOJ Inspector General to report to Congress if dismissal is directed by the President.

Sec. 701, Title VII

Proposed Constitutional Amendment on Campaign Finance Regulation

prominently featuredstraightforward

This title proposes a constitutional amendment to allow Congress and states to regulate and impose viewpoint-neutral limitations on money in elections, including public campaign financing. It explicitly permits distinguishing between natural persons and corporations/artificial entities, potentially prohibiting entities from spending money to influence elections. It includes a clause protecting freedom of the press.

Sec. 802-805, Title VIII

Enhanced Disclosure of Campaign-Related and Judicial Nomination Disbursements

prominently featuredhighly complex

This title amends the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require "covered organizations" (corporations, LLCs, 501(c) groups, labor organizations, certain PACs) to disclose campaign-related disbursements over $10,000, including beneficial owners and donors of $10,000 or more. It also extends these disclosure requirements to "Federal judicial nomination communications," treating them as campaign-related disbursements. It includes exceptions for ordinary business transactions and donor restrictions on fund use.

Sec. 902, Title IX

Limiting Corporate PACs to Nonprofit Corporations

prominently featuredstraightforward

This title amends the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to restrict the ability to establish or operate separate segregated funds (PACs) for political purposes to only *nonprofit* corporations. It also limits solicitations for these PACs to executive and administrative personnel, excluding stockholders.

Sec. 1003-1007, Title X

Federal Mandates for Nonpartisan Congressional Redistricting

prominently featuredhighly complex

This title bans mid-decade redistricting and establishes a federal framework for congressional redistricting, requiring states to use ranked criteria: population equality, Voting Rights Act compliance, community of interest preservation, and a prohibition on materially favoring or disfavoring any political party. It includes a rebuttable presumption of violation for partisan advantage exceeding a certain threshold. It also mandates public notice, hearings, and online publication of plans and data, and establishes federal court jurisdiction for enforcement, including the power for a 3-judge court to draw maps if states fail to comply.

Sec. 1102-1112, Title XI

Modernizing and Strengthening the Voting Rights Act

prominently featuredhighly complex

This title amends Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) to clarify vote dilution, denial, and abridgment claims, establishing specific factors for courts to consider and explicitly stating that discriminatory purpose need only be *one* purpose. It reestablishes a preclearance regime (Section 4A) for "covered practices" (e.g., changes to election methods, voter ID, voting locations) in states/subdivisions with a history of violations, requiring federal approval before implementation. It also enhances transparency requirements for voting changes, clarifies the Attorney General's authority to assign observers, and strengthens enforcement mechanisms.

Sec. 1201-1202, Title XII

Forfeiture of Federal Retirement Benefits for Felony Convictions

prominently featuredstraightforward

This title expands existing federal retirement benefit forfeiture rules to include Members of Congress and Cabinet members convicted of any felony (federal or state) committed during or after their service. It also reiterates and clarifies the forfeiture of benefits for former Presidents convicted of felonies committed during or after their presidency, requiring repayment of benefits received between initial and final conviction.

Sec. 1301, Title XIII

Exceptions to Federal Tort Claims Act for Presidential Lawsuits

prominently featuredmoderately complex

This title adds exceptions to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), prohibiting claims brought by the President, their immediate family (spouse, parent, child, grandparent, grandchild, sibling), or any entity in which the President has an ownership interest. It also prohibits claims by former Presidents unless approved by an ad hoc congressional committee with bipartisan supermajority vote (8 of 12 members). These amendments apply to pending or future claims.

Sec. 1402, Title XIV

Ban on Prediction Market Participation for Covered Individuals

prominently featuredmoderately complex

This title prohibits a broad range of "covered individuals" (including President, VP, Members of Congress, federal employees above GS-15, judicial officers/employees, political appointees, and their fiduciaries) from participating in prediction markets. A prediction market is defined as an agreement, contract, or transaction dependent on the occurrence, nonoccurrence, or extent of a specific political event. Violations incur a 10% fee and disgorgement of profits.

FOUND

Allows an exemption for covered investments held in a family trust if no covered individual is a grantor, contributed investments, or has authority over the trustee, and the grantor was a family member of the covered individual.

Sec. 102(f)(2), Title I

Why it matters:Standard legislative practice to include detailed exceptions, but could be seen as a potential loophole if not carefully scrutinized.

Case for: Proponents argue this protects legitimate family estate planning and inherited assets from being unnecessarily divested, recognizing that some trusts are truly independent of the covered individual's control.

Case against: Critics might argue this creates a potential loophole for covered individuals to indirectly maintain interests in prohibited investments through family trusts, especially if the "no authority over trustee" clause is difficult to enforce.

Estimated impact: Potentially significant for a small number of wealthy individuals with complex family trusts, allowing them to retain assets that would otherwise be divested.

FOUND

In the event of a Supreme Court vacancy, disability, or disqualification, a senior justice (one who has retired from active service after their 18-year term) would be chosen by the Chief Justice through a publicly transparent and randomized process to serve as an associate justice until the court is full.

Sec. 303(e), Title III

Why it matters:Technical amendment to existing law, but the mechanism for filling temporary vacancies is a significant detail.

Case for: Proponents argue this ensures the Court can maintain its full complement and function effectively during unexpected absences or vacancies, leveraging the experience of retired justices.

Case against: Critics might argue that a "randomized process" gives too much power to the Chief Justice in selecting a temporary justice, or that it could lead to a less predictable or consistent judicial approach if temporary justices are frequently rotated.

Estimated impact: Potentially significant for the functioning of the Supreme Court during periods of vacancy or absence, ensuring continuity.

FOUND

Explicitly prohibits the use of appropriated funds, Treasury funds, fees, or any other Government funds to pay any disgorgement imposed by a court for foreign emoluments violations.

Sec. 624(d), Title VI, Subtitle C

Why it matters:A technical detail about financial penalties, but crucial for ensuring personal accountability.

Case for: Proponents argue this ensures that officials who violate emoluments clauses are personally liable for their illicit gains, preventing taxpayers from footing the bill for their misconduct.

Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against ensuring personal accountability for ill-gotten gains.

Estimated impact: Ensures personal financial responsibility for emoluments violations, preventing public funds from being used to cover penalties.

FOUND

Establishes a rebuttable presumption that a redistricting plan violates the prohibition on partisan favoring if, based on standard quantitative measures of partisan fairness, it exceeds a threshold (7% of districts or one district, whichever is greater) in 2 or more of the 4 most recent presidential and senatorial general elections. It also mandates an automatic stay of the plan's use if such a motion is filed.

Sec. 1004(c)(3), Title X

Why it matters:Highly technical legal standard and procedural trigger, easy to overlook for non-specialists.

Case for: Proponents argue this provides a clear, objective standard for identifying and challenging partisan gerrymandering, shifting the burden of proof to states to justify maps that appear highly biased. The automatic stay prevents biased maps from being used while litigation proceeds.

Case against: Critics might argue that quantitative measures of partisan fairness are imperfect and can be manipulated, and that an automatic stay is an extreme measure that could disrupt elections based on a presumption rather than a final ruling.

Estimated impact: Potentially transforms gerrymandering litigation, making it significantly easier to challenge and overturn partisan maps.

About this analysis. AI-Generated from the official bill text and available committee reports. Gaps in available data are noted explicitly. Verify important details with the official Congress.gov record.

On this page

  • Executive summary
  • Key provisions
  • Buried treasure
  • Follow the money
  • Critical analysis
  • Questions to ask
  • Implementation
  • Political analysis
  • Riders
  • Tactical maneuvers
  • Process critique
  • Transparency
Ask Ledger AI about this