To prohibit Federal funding for entities that employ individuals who condone and celebrate political violence and domestic terrorism, and for other purposes.
- Bill Number
- H.R. 5352
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Government Operations and Politics
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-09-15: Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
- Last Updated
- 2025-09-27T08:06:04Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
The legislation, H.R. 5352, aims to prevent the use of federal taxpayer dollars to support organizations that hire people who support or praise political violence and domestic terrorism. It seeks to ensure that federal funding does not indirectly endorse or enable such behaviors.
Key Provisions
- Funding Prohibition: No federal funds can be obligated (committed), expended (spent), or disbursed (paid out) to any entity that employs individuals who "condone and celebrate" political violence and domestic terrorism.
- Definition: "Domestic terrorism" is defined by reference to existing federal law (18 U.S.C. § 2331), which describes it as acts dangerous to human life that violate U.S. criminal laws and appear intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence government policy, or affect government conduct through coercion, mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.
- The bill applies broadly to any "entity," which could include businesses, nonprofits, educational institutions, or other organizations receiving federal support.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- This introduces a new restriction on federal funding eligibility, tying it directly to the personal views or actions of an entity's employees regarding violence and terrorism.
- Prior to this, federal funding rules (such as those under grants or contracts) focused more on the entity's compliance with laws, financial accountability, or program-specific criteria, without a specific ban based on employees' expressed support for political violence.
- It builds on the existing definition of domestic terrorism but expands its application to funding decisions, creating a proactive barrier rather than just punitive measures after incidents.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: Agencies like the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Education, or others that distribute federal grants and contracts would need to implement new vetting processes to check employees of recipient entities, potentially increasing administrative burdens and compliance costs.
- On Citizens: Individuals who receive federal benefits through funded programs (e.g., students on scholarships or patients at subsidized clinics) might face disruptions if their supporting organizations lose funding due to an employee's views. Employees expressing controversial opinions could risk their jobs or the organization's funding.
- On Entities: Nonprofits, universities, hospitals, and contractors reliant on federal dollars (which total hundreds of billions annually) could lose significant revenue, leading to program cuts, layoffs, or closures.
- On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though it could affect U.S.-funded international aid organizations if their U.S.-based employees fall under the prohibition.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Federal Government and Taxpayers: Agencies responsible for fund distribution and citizens funding these programs through taxes, who may see shifts in how public money is allocated.
- Recipient Entities: Organizations like educational institutions, healthcare providers, research groups, and advocacy nonprofits that depend on federal grants or contracts.
- Employees: Workers in these entities, particularly those in public-facing or activist roles, whose personal expressions on political violence could trigger funding reviews or terminations.
- Vulnerable Populations: Communities served by funded programs, such as low-income families, students, or research beneficiaries, who might lose access to services.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal Implications: The bill's language on "condone and celebrate" is broad and subjective, potentially leading to legal challenges over enforcement—e.g., how to prove an employee's views without infringing on free speech. Courts might scrutinize it for vagueness under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
- Constitutional Implications: Raises First Amendment concerns, as it could penalize entities based on employees' protected speech or political expression, even if not directly tied to illegal acts. It might be seen as government overreach into private employment decisions.
- Political Implications: As a targeted measure introduced in a polarized Congress, it could spark debates on balancing national security with civil liberties, potentially influencing future funding bills or executive actions on terrorism. Its referral to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform suggests focus on accountability in federal spending.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Rep. Van Orden, Derrick [R-WI-3]
Cosponsors (3)
Rep. Hunt, Wesley [R-TX-38], Rep. De La Cruz, Monica [R-TX-15], Rep. Kelly, Mike [R-PA-16]
Recent Actions
- 2025-09-15: Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
- 2025-09-15: Introduced in House
- 2025-09-15: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- To prohibit Federal funding for entities that employ individuals who condone and celebrate political violence and domestic terrorism, and for other purposes. — issued 2025-09-15 — PDF (2 pages)