ELON MUSK Act
- Bill Number
- H.R. 2737
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Government Operations and Politics
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-04-08: Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
- Last Updated
- 2025-05-22T17:54:19Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose of the Legislation
This bill, titled the "Eliminating Looting of Our Nation by Mitigating Unethical State Kleptocracy Act of 2025" (or "ELON MUSK Act"), aims to prevent conflicts of interest in the federal government by barring special government employees—part-time or temporary federal workers, such as consultants who serve fewer than 130 days per year—from entering into or profiting from federal contracts or agreements.
Key Provisions
- Prohibition on New Contracts: Special government employees are forbidden from entering into or benefiting from any federal contract or agreement.
- Termination of Existing Contracts: Any federal contracts or agreements already held by special government employees must be ended immediately upon the bill's enactment.
- Definition: The term "special government employee" is defined as per existing federal law (18 U.S.C. § 202), referring to individuals appointed to provide temporary or intermittent services to the government.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- This introduces a strict ban on special government employees holding or benefiting from federal contracts, which was not explicitly prohibited before. Previously, ethics rules (like those in the Ethics in Government Act) allowed such arrangements under disclosure and recusal requirements, but this bill eliminates those options entirely, requiring full termination of any conflicting interests.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: Federal agencies, such as those in defense, health, or oversight (e.g., the Office of Government Ethics), may face administrative challenges in terminating contracts and recruiting part-time experts, potentially slowing advisory or consulting processes.
- On Citizens: Taxpayers could benefit from reduced risks of insider dealing or favoritism in government contracting, promoting fairer use of public funds; however, it might limit access to specialized expertise if experts avoid government roles to preserve business interests.
- On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though it could indirectly affect U.S. partnerships with private entities (e.g., in space or technology sectors) if key advisors are forced to divest federal contracts.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Special Government Employees: Individuals like consultants, advisors, or part-time officials who may lose income from federal contracts and need to choose between government service and business dealings.
- Federal Contractors and Businesses: Companies owned or led by special government employees, which must terminate government agreements, potentially disrupting operations.
- Congress and Oversight Bodies: The bill was referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which would enforce compliance; broader ethics watchdogs like the Office of Government Ethics would monitor implementation.
- General Public: As indirect beneficiaries through stronger anti-corruption measures.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: Strengthens federal ethics enforcement by closing a potential loophole in conflict-of-interest laws, but could lead to legal challenges over contract terminations (e.g., claims of breach or takings under the Fifth Amendment). It aligns with broader anti-corruption statutes like 18 U.S.C. § 208 but imposes a blanket prohibition without waivers.
- Constitutional: No major constitutional issues apparent, as it regulates federal employment and contracting without infringing on free speech or due process; however, abrupt terminations might raise property rights concerns for affected parties.
- Political: Sponsored by a bipartisan group of Democrats focused on government reform, it signals heightened scrutiny of public-private overlaps (e.g., in tech or innovation sectors). Passage could set a precedent for stricter ethics rules, influencing future lobbying and advisory roles, but faces potential opposition from industries reliant on government ties.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Cosponsors (18)
Rep. Bonamici, Suzanne [D-OR-1], Rep. Carson, André [D-IN-7], Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large], Rep. Huffman, Jared [D-CA-2], Rep. Jackson, Jonathan L. [D-IL-1], Rep. Khanna, Ro [D-CA-17], Rep. Lee, Summer L. [D-PA-12], Rep. McCollum, Betty [D-MN-4], Rep. McGovern, James P. [D-MA-2], Rep. Pingree, Chellie [D-ME-1], Rep. Tlaib, Rashida [D-MI-12], Rep. Velázquez, Nydia M. [D-NY-7], Rep. Watson Coleman, Bonnie [D-NJ-12], Rep. Houlahan, Chrissy [D-PA-6], Rep. McClellan, Jennifer L. [D-VA-4], Rep. McIver, LaMonica [D-NJ-10], Rep. Adams, Alma S. [D-NC-12], Rep. Garcia, Robert [D-CA-42]
Recent Actions
- 2025-04-08: Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
- 2025-04-08: Introduced in House
- 2025-04-08: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- Eliminating Looting of Our Nation by Mitigating Unethical State Kleptocracy Act of 2025 — issued 2025-04-08 — PDF (2 pages)