No Political Enemies Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Murphy, Christopher [D-CT]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jan 14, 2026
Bottom line
The 'No Political Enemies Act' aims to safeguard political speech and participation from federal government targeting by creating new legal protections, remedies, and oversight mechanisms.
What it actually does
This bill prohibits federal officials from initiating or directing enforcement actions against individuals or organizations based on their protected political speech or participation. It establishes an affirmative defense for those targeted, allows civil actions for injunctions and damages against officials, and prohibits the use of federal funds for such targeting. It also mandates regular reporting to Congress on sensitive government investigations.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill is essential to protect fundamental First Amendment rights, prevent the weaponization of federal agencies for political purposes, and ensure government accountability. They contend it will prevent a chilling effect on dissent and criticism, reinforcing the constitutional principle that the government should not attack individuals or organizations for their political views.
Opponents contend
Critics might contend that the bill could unduly hinder legitimate law enforcement and national security investigations by creating overly broad protections for speech, making it difficult to prosecute activities that, while involving speech, also violate federal laws. They may argue it could expose federal officials to excessive personal liability and create significant procedural burdens for government agencies.
The bill is relatively short and clearly structured, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its core provisions and implications within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2
Congressional Findings on Presidential Authority and First Amendment
This section establishes Congress's findings that the President lacks delegated or inherent authority to designate an entity as a domestic terrorist organization. It also reaffirms that the First Amendment explicitly guarantees freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and petition, and that no federal employee may violate these constitutional rights.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue these findings are crucial for establishing the constitutional basis and necessity of the bill, reinforcing fundamental rights and explicitly limiting executive overreach regarding the designation of domestic terrorist organizations.
Critics contend
Critics might argue these findings are overly broad or preemptive, potentially hindering future executive actions deemed necessary for national security or counter-terrorism efforts, even if those actions are within constitutional bounds.
Tradeoffs
This provision navigates the tension between executive power to address national security threats and the constitutional imperative to protect civil liberties and prevent government overreach.
Section 3
Key Definitions for Political Targeting Protections
This section defines critical terms that determine the scope of the bill. Key definitions include 'covered enforcement claim,' 'covered Federal official,' 'covered Government action,' 'covered person' (domestic entities and individuals in the U.S.), and 'protected speech or participation.' It clarifies that 'substantially motivated by protected speech or participation' means it's a motivating factor, but not necessarily the sole reason, and explicitly states that actions under certain election laws are not solely considered politically motivated.
Section 4
General Prohibition on Political Targeting
This section establishes a direct prohibition against any covered Federal official initiating or directing a covered enforcement claim or a covered Government action against a covered person if that action is substantially motivated by the person's protected speech or participation, or is intended to suppress, burden, or punish such speech.
Section 5
Affirmative Defense for Political Targeting
This provision creates an affirmative defense for any covered person facing a federal enforcement claim, allowing them to argue that the claim was substantially motivated by their protected speech. If substantial evidence of such motivation is presented, the court must order expedited discovery into government motivations, and the burden of proof shifts to the government to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the action was legitimately justified and not substantially motivated by protected speech.
Section 6
Civil Action to Seek an Injunction Against Political Targeting
This section allows a covered person to bring a civil action in federal court to seek injunctive or other equitable relief against a federal official or agency that is taking or imminently will take a covered Government action substantially motivated by protected speech. It specifies that a First Amendment violation is sufficient to establish harm, and a likelihood of success in showing political targeting is enough to establish irreparable harm for preliminary injunctions. It also explicitly permits injunctions against tax assessments or collections if politically motivated.
Section 7
Civil Action for Damages for Political Targeting
This section allows a covered person to bring a civil action for damages against a federal official if that official knowingly initiated or directed a politically motivated government action that violated the covered person's constitutional rights. It largely abrogates official immunity, except for good faith actions where the speech was clearly unprotected, and limits federal indemnification of officials unless specific conditions are met.
Section 8
Attorneys Fees and Costs for Meritless Political Targeting
This section allows federal courts to award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs to a party that 'substantially prevailed' in a proceeding where they demonstrate the government's action or claim was substantially motivated by protected speech. This applies to both criminal and civil cases, and explicitly removes statutory limits on such awards, ensuring full recovery of legal expenses.
Section 10
Congressional Oversight and Reporting on Covered Matters
This section mandates that the Attorney General submit quarterly reports to the Senate and House Judiciary Committees. These reports must summarize all 'covered matters' (criminal investigations, prosecutions, or enforcement actions requiring high-level Department of Justice approval or designated as sensitive) initiated, approved, declined, or closed during the preceding quarter, including the basis for decisions and any policy changes. It also requires immediate notification to Congress if a court rejects or allows discovery into a prosecutorial declaration.
Amends 31 U.S.C. 1341(a) (the Antideficiency Act) to explicitly prohibit the obligation or expenditure of federal funds for any covered Government action or covered enforcement claim against a covered person that is substantially motivated by protected speech or participation. It also creates a new civil action allowing any aggrieved person to seek injunctive or other equitable relief against such unlawful expenditure of funds, granting federal courts broad jurisdiction.
Section 9
Why it matters:While amending existing statutes is standard legislative practice, its placement within a broader bill focused on political targeting might obscure its significant fiscal and enforcement implications for federal agencies and their budgets.
Case for: Proponents argue this is a powerful mechanism to prevent the misuse of taxpayer funds for politically motivated actions, providing a direct financial disincentive and a new legal avenue for citizens to challenge such abuses at the funding stage.
Case against: Opponents might argue that this amendment could create significant administrative and legal complexities for federal agencies, requiring them to constantly assess the 'motivation' behind every expenditure, potentially leading to bureaucratic paralysis or increased litigation over funding decisions.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant, as it could halt or prevent any federal spending deemed politically motivated, affecting a wide range of government activities and potentially leading to legal challenges over budget allocations.