No Presidential Payouts Act

Bill Number

H.R. 5842

Origin Chamber

House

Congress

119th Congress, Session 1

Policy Area

Government Operations and Politics

Status

Introduced

Latest Action

2025-10-28: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

Last Updated

2025-12-09T21:12:16Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose

The "No Presidential Payouts Act" (H.R. 5842) aims to prevent the use of taxpayer-funded federal resources to cover legal costs incurred by the President of the United States, their relatives, or associated entities in connection with federal criminal or civil investigations or proceedings. It seeks to ensure that such individuals bear their own expenses without relying on public funds.

Key Provisions

• Prohibition on Claims and Judgment Fund Usage (Section 2(a)): Overrides existing law (Section 1304 of Title 31, U.S. Code, which allows payments from the U.S. Treasury's Claims and Judgment Fund for certain court judgments against the government) to bar any payments from this fund to the President, their relatives, or related entities for costs related to criminal or civil matters where they are parties.
• Broad Ban on Federal Funds (Section 2(b)): Prohibits the use of any federal funds—not just the Judgment Fund—to compensate the President, relatives, or associated entities for legal expenses in federal criminal or civil cases involving them.
• The bill applies specifically to costs "in relation to" such matters, focusing on investigations or proceedings by the federal government.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

• Amends the scope of the Claims and Judgment Fund by explicitly excluding payments for presidential legal costs, which could previously be eligible if tied to government actions (e.g., defending against lawsuits stemming from official duties).
• Introduces a categorical ban on all federal funding for these purposes, closing potential loopholes in current appropriations laws that might allow indirect reimbursements through agency budgets.

Potential Impacts

• On Government Agencies: The Department of Justice (DOJ) and Treasury Department would be restricted in handling settlements or judgments, potentially requiring stricter oversight of fund disbursements and leading to more internal legal reviews before any payments.
• On Citizens/Taxpayers: Reduces the risk of public money being used for private legal defenses, potentially saving taxpayer dollars and promoting fiscal accountability in high-profile cases.
• On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though it could indirectly affect perceptions of U.S. governance integrity in cases involving foreign policy or international investigations tied to the President.
• Overall, it may deter reliance on federal resources for personal legal matters, shifting costs to private sources.

Main Stakeholders Affected

• The President and Associates: Directly limits their access to federal funds for legal defenses in federal matters, affecting current and future presidents, their family members, and business or personal entities linked to them.
• Federal Government Entities: Primarily the DOJ (for investigations) and Treasury (for fund management), which must comply with the new restrictions.
• Taxpayers and Congress: Benefits the public by protecting federal budgets; Congress gains a tool for oversight of executive branch expenditures.
• Legal and Judicial Systems: Courts and federal prosecutors may see procedural adjustments in handling related settlements.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

• Legal Implications: Challenges the traditional use of the Judgment Fund for executive-related claims, potentially leading to litigation over what constitutes an "associated entity" or "costs in relation to" a matter; requires clear definitions to avoid vagueness challenges under due process principles.
• Constitutional Implications: Raises questions about separation of powers, as it limits Congress's control over executive funding while ensuring the President cannot use public resources for personal defenses—aligning with Article II (executive powers) but reinforcing congressional purse-string authority under Article I.
• Political Implications: Could be seen as a safeguard against conflicts of interest in politically sensitive investigations, but might be criticized as targeting specific individuals or administrations, influencing debates on accountability and partisanship in Congress. The bill's referral to the House Judiciary Committee suggests it may spark hearings on executive accountability.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Rep. Crockett, Jasmine [D-TX-30]

Recent Actions

• 2025-10-28: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
• 2025-10-28: Introduced in House
• 2025-10-28: Introduced in House

Bill Versions

• No Presidential Payouts Act — issued 2025-10-28 — PDF (2 pages)