Preventing Payouts for Insurrectionists Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Schiff, Adam B. [D-CA]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 9, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to prevent and reverse federal payments to individuals convicted of offenses related to specific past election interference and the January 6th Capitol attack.
What it actually does
This bill amends title 28, United States Code, to prohibit individuals convicted of felonies or misdemeanors related to the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack or the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections from receiving monetary payments from the United States for claims arising from those events. It also retroactively requires any such individuals who received payments between January 20, 2025, and the bill's enactment date to return the funds to the Treasury, with State Attorneys General empowered to bring civil actions to enforce this recoupment and collect additional damages for their states.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill ensures accountability for those who engaged in acts of insurrection or interfered with democratic processes. They contend that it is inappropriate for the federal government to disburse funds, including through the Judgment Fund, to individuals convicted of crimes against the United States, particularly when those crimes sought to undermine the peaceful transfer of power or election integrity. Supporters emphasize that the bill prevents taxpayer money from effectively rewarding unlawful conduct.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the bill raises significant due process concerns, particularly regarding its retroactive application to claims already paid. They may contend that it could be seen as an ex post facto law or a bill of attainder, potentially facing constitutional challenges. Critics might also express concerns about the broad scope of 'claims' that could be barred and the precedent set by allowing State Attorneys General to pursue federal funds, potentially politicizing the legal process.
The bill is short and straightforward, allowing for quick comprehension of its core provisions.
Section 2(a), amending 28 U.S.C. 2680
Barring Claims by Convicted Insurrectionists
This provision adds a new subsection (o) to Section 2680 of title 28, United States Code, which generally outlines exceptions to the federal government's waiver of sovereign immunity. The new subsection prevents any individual convicted of a felony or misdemeanor related to the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, actions intended to disrupt the 2020 election certification, or actions to unlawfully influence the 2016 election, from bringing claims against the United States. This bar applies regardless of when the act giving rise to the claim occurred, and even if the individual was subsequently pardoned.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that this provision is essential for ensuring that individuals who committed crimes against the government, particularly those aimed at undermining democratic processes, are not able to profit from or seek compensation from that same government. They believe it upholds the principle of accountability and prevents the misuse of taxpayer funds.
Critics contend
Opponents may argue that this provision could be overly broad in its definition of 'claims' and 'related to,' potentially impacting legitimate grievances. Concerns might also be raised about the inclusion of pardoned individuals, suggesting that a pardon should fully restore an individual's rights, including the right to seek legal redress.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the desire for accountability for specific unlawful acts against potential concerns regarding the scope of claims barred and the treatment of pardoned individuals under federal law.
Section 2(b)
Applicability Date for Claim Bar
This subsection specifies that the new bar on claims (established in Section 2(a)) will apply to any claim that is pending on, or brought on or after, January 20, 2025. This means that even if a claim was initiated before the bill's enactment, it would be subject to the new prohibition if it was still active on or after this specific date.
Section 2(c)(1)
Recoupment of Previously Disbursed Funds
This provision mandates that any individual covered by the claim bar (i.e., convicted of the specified offenses) who received any monetary payment, judgment, award, compromise, settlement, or interest from the United States between January 20, 2025, and the bill's enactment date, must return the full amount to the U.S. Treasury. This includes payments disbursed from the Judgment Fund (Section 1304 of title 31, United States Code).
Section 2(c)(2)
Enforcement of Recoupment by State Attorneys General
This subsection grants State Attorneys General the authority to bring civil actions in federal district court on behalf of the United States against individuals required to return funds under paragraph (1). A State AG can act if the individual resides in their state or committed one of the specified offenses within their state. If successful, the court must order the individual to return the full amount to the U.S. Treasury and pay damages equal to 25 percent of that amount to the State, intended to cover state law enforcement and justice administration costs.
This clause mandates that in a successful civil action brought by a State Attorney General, the court shall order the individual to pay damages equal to 25 percent of the recouped amount to the State to defray the costs of State law enforcement and the administration of justice.
Section 2(c)(2)(B)(ii)
Why it matters:This is a standard legislative practice to provide incentives for enforcement, but its specific financial implications for states could be overlooked.
Case for: Proponents would argue that this 25% damage award provides a necessary incentive for State Attorneys General to dedicate resources to pursuing these recoupment actions, ensuring effective enforcement of the federal law. It helps offset the costs states incur in litigation.
Case against: Critics might argue that this provision could incentivize states to pursue these cases for financial gain rather than purely for justice, potentially leading to overzealous or politically motivated litigation. It also raises questions about the appropriate distribution of federal funds and penalties.
Estimated impact: This provision could result in significant financial transfers to states, depending on the total amount of funds recouped, providing a direct fiscal benefit to state law enforcement and justice systems.