ETHICAL Procurement Act

Bill Number

H.R. 6689

Origin Chamber

House

Congress

119th Congress, Session 1

Policy Area

Armed Forces and National Security

Status

Introduced

Latest Action

2025-12-12: Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.

Last Updated

2026-01-07T23:12:24Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose

The ETHICAL Procurement Act aims to prevent conflicts of interest in Department of Defense (DoD) contracting by prohibiting awards to entities owned or led by certain high-level government officials or their immediate family members. This promotes transparency, honesty, and integrity in the acquisition of goods and services.

Key Provisions

• Prohibition on Contracts: The Secretary of Defense cannot enter into, renew, or extend contracts for goods or services from entities where:
• An officer, director, partner, or majority owner is a high-level official, including:
• Presidential appointees confirmed by the Senate.
• Employees in confidential or policy-determining roles (Schedule C positions under federal regulations).
• Special government employees (temporary advisors who serve without full-time pay but are subject to ethics rules).
• Members of the Senior Executive Service (a group of top career federal executives).
• An immediate family member (parent, child, sibling, spouse, or domestic partner) of the President, such officials, or special government employees serves as an officer, director, partner, or holds a significant ownership interest that could yield substantial financial benefits from the contract.
• Implementation Requirements: Within 30 days of enactment, the Secretary must issue regulations defining key terms (e.g., "significant ownership" thresholds), identifying affected individuals and entities, and establishing procedures for compliance.
• Scope: The prohibition applies regardless of other existing laws, covering any DoD acquisition of goods or services.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

• Introduces a new, specific ban on DoD contracts tied to high-level officials and their families, overriding conflicting provisions in current federal contracting statutes (e.g., those under the Federal Acquisition Regulation).
• Expands conflict-of-interest rules beyond traditional ethics laws (like those in Title 18 of the U.S. Code) by directly linking family financial interests to contract ineligibility, rather than relying solely on disclosure or recusal.
• Mandates rapid rulemaking (30 days), which accelerates implementation compared to standard federal regulatory timelines that can take months or years.

Potential Impacts

• On Government Agencies: The DoD will face stricter vetting processes for contractors, potentially delaying awards and increasing administrative costs for compliance checks. Other agencies may see indirect effects if similar rules inspire broader reforms.
• On Citizens: Enhances public trust in defense spending by reducing risks of favoritism or corruption, but could limit business opportunities for affected families, indirectly impacting taxpayers through more competitive bidding.
• On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though it may affect U.S. defense contractors with global ties, potentially influencing alliances or procurement from foreign-influenced entities if ownership structures overlap.

Main Stakeholders Affected

• Department of Defense: Primary enforcer, responsible for regulations and contract decisions.
• High-Level Government Officials and Their Families: Includes Senate-confirmed appointees, Schedule C employees, special government employees, Senior Executive Service members, and the President's relatives; they may need to divest interests in contracting entities.
• Defense Contractors: Entities with ties to these individuals face ineligibility, prompting ownership restructuring or exclusion from DoD opportunities.
• Taxpayers and the Public: Benefit from reduced conflict risks but may see higher costs if the contractor pool shrinks.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

• Legal: Strengthens federal ethics enforcement by creating enforceable contract prohibitions, but relies on Secretary-determined thresholds (e.g., "substantial financial benefit"), which could lead to challenges over vagueness or arbitrary application in court.
• Constitutional: Family-based restrictions might raise due process concerns under the Fifth Amendment if seen as overly broad, though they align with existing anti-nepotism precedents (e.g., in ethics laws). No direct First Amendment issues, as it targets financial conflicts rather than speech.
• Political: Advances bipartisan anti-corruption efforts in defense procurement, potentially setting a model for other agencies; however, it could spark debates over fairness to officials' families or unintended barriers to diverse contractor participation.

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

Sponsor

Rep. Horsford, Steven [D-NV-4]

Cosponsors (1)

Rep. Cisneros, Gilbert Ray [D-CA-31]

Recent Actions

• 2025-12-12: Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.
• 2025-12-12: Introduced in House
• 2025-12-12: Introduced in House

Bill Versions

• Ensuring Transparency, Honesty, and Integrity for Contracting, Acquisition, and Lifecycle Procurement Act — issued 2025-12-12 — PDF (3 pages)