No Political Enemies Act

Bill Number

H.R. 7060

Origin Chamber

House

Congress

119th Congress, Session 2

Policy Area

Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues

Status

Introduced

Latest Action

2026-01-14: Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Oversight and Government Reform, and Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

Last Updated

2026-04-29T17:10:25Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose of the Legislation

The "No Political Enemies Act" (H.R. 7060) aims to prevent federal government officials from targeting individuals or organizations for their political speech or participation, thereby protecting First Amendment rights to free speech, press, assembly, and petitioning the government. It addresses concerns about the executive branch using investigative, regulatory, or enforcement powers to suppress dissent or criticism.

Key Provisions

• Findings and Definitions (Sections 2-3):

Congress asserts that the President lacks authority to designate domestic terrorist organizations without statutory delegation and reaffirms First Amendment protections. Key terms include:

• Covered federal official: Any executive branch officer or employee, including the President and Vice President.
• Covered government action: Investigative, regulatory, or enforcement activities under federal law against specific targets.
• Covered person: U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, others present in the U.S., or domestic entities (e.g., companies organized under U.S. laws).
• Protected speech or participation: Constitutionally guaranteed expression, including criticism or dissent.
• Substantially motivated: When protected speech is a motivating factor (not necessarily the sole reason), though actions under laws directly regulating political activities (e.g., voting rights statutes) are exempt.

• General Prohibition (Section 4):

Covered officials are barred from initiating or directing enforcement actions or claims against covered persons if substantially motivated by protected speech, or intended to suppress, burden, or punish it.

• Affirmative Defense in Enforcement Claims (Section 5):

In federal civil or criminal cases, defendants can raise political targeting as a defense. If they provide substantial evidence of motivation by protected speech:

• Courts must allow expedited discovery (quick access to evidence) on the government's motives.
• The government bears the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence (a high standard) that the action had legitimate, unrelated grounds.
• Failure to meet this burden results in dismissal of the case or other relief.

• Civil Actions for Injunctions (Section 6):

Covered persons can sue in federal court for injunctive relief (court orders to stop actions) against officials or agencies engaging in or planning politically motivated actions.

• A First Amendment violation alone suffices to show harm.
• Courts have jurisdiction bypassing certain limits (e.g., on reviewing agency actions).
• Special provision: Courts can block tax assessments or collections if motivated by speech, overriding usual restrictions on tax-related injunctions.

• Civil Actions for Damages (Section 7):

Covered persons can sue officials for monetary damages if the official knowingly directed a politically motivated action violating constitutional rights.

• Officials lose immunity (legal protection from suits) unless they acted in good faith and the speech was clearly unprotected.
• The U.S. government cannot cover officials' liability unless specific conditions are met (e.g., inability to pay).
• This does not limit other existing legal remedies.

• Attorneys' Fees and Costs (Section 8):

Prevailing parties (those who substantially win relief, like case dismissal or injunctions) can recover reasonable legal fees from the U.S. if the action was politically motivated.

• No caps apply to these awards, overriding typical limits.
• Applies to both criminal and civil cases.

• Prohibition on Using Funds (Section 9):

Amends the Anti-Deficiency Act (31 U.S.C. § 1341) to bar federal spending on politically motivated actions or claims.

• Aggrieved persons can sue for injunctions, with courts having broad jurisdiction.

• Reporting Requirements (Section 10):

The Attorney General must submit quarterly unclassified reports (with optional classified annexes) to congressional Judiciary Committees on:

• High-level Department of Justice (DOJ) investigations, prosecutions, or actions.
• Reasons for approvals, declinations, or policy changes.
• Immediate notifications (within 3 business days) for court rulings affecting prosecutorial motives or confidentiality.

• Severability (Section 11):

If any part is ruled unconstitutional, the rest remains in effect.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

• Introduces a new affirmative defense in federal enforcement cases, shifting the burden to the government to disprove political motivation—unlike current law, where defendants typically bear the full proof burden.
• Creates private rights of action for injunctions and damages against officials, abrogating (removing) qualified immunity in many cases and allowing suits against high-level figures like the President.
• Overrides restrictions on federal court review of agency actions (e.g., under the Administrative Procedure Act) and tax injunctions (Internal Revenue Code § 7421).
• Expands the Anti-Deficiency Act to prohibit funding for politically motivated enforcement, adding a civil remedy for violations.
• Imposes new DOJ reporting obligations, increasing congressional oversight of sensitive cases without prior equivalents.

Potential Impacts

• On Government Agencies: Executive branch entities (e.g., DOJ, IRS, FBI) face heightened scrutiny, potential dismissal of cases, and financial liability for fees or damages, which could deter aggressive enforcement and require more internal reviews to document non-political motives. This may slow investigations and increase administrative burdens.
• On Citizens: Enhances protections for U.S. residents and domestic groups engaging in political speech, making it easier to challenge perceived abuses via courts, potentially reducing self-censorship due to fear of retaliation.
• On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, as the bill focuses on domestic entities and persons; it does not address foreign actors or extraterritorial actions explicitly.

Main Stakeholders Affected

• Covered Persons: U.S. citizens, lawful immigrants, visitors, and domestic organizations (e.g., nonprofits, businesses) involved in political expression, who gain new tools to defend against targeting.
• Federal Officials and Agencies: Executive branch employees, particularly in law enforcement (DOJ, FBI) and regulatory roles (e.g., IRS for tax-exempt status), who are directly prohibited from certain actions and subject to personal liability.
• Congress: Gains enhanced oversight through mandatory DOJ reports, strengthening its role in monitoring executive power.
• Courts: Will handle more cases involving motive-based challenges, with procedural changes like expedited discovery.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

• Legal: Establishes a lower threshold for proving retaliation ("substantially motivated" as a factor, not sole cause), potentially leading to more successful challenges to government actions. It preserves existing election laws while carving out exceptions, avoiding broad conflicts.
• Constitutional: Reinforces First Amendment safeguards against government suppression of speech and limits executive authority (e.g., no inherent power to label domestic terrorists), promoting separation of powers by curbing potential abuses. However, it could raise questions about judicial overreach into executive discretion or presidential immunity in ongoing constitutional debates.
• Political: Signals bipartisan concern (introduced by Democrats but framed neutrally) over politicized enforcement, aiming to build trust in institutions by deterring "weaponization" of government against opponents. It may influence partisan dynamics in oversight and litigation but risks being seen as limiting legitimate national security efforts.

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

Sponsor

Rep. Crow, Jason [D-CO-6]

Cosponsors (10)

Rep. Houlahan, Chrissy [D-PA-6], Rep. Frost, Maxwell [D-FL-10], Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, Alexandria [D-NY-14], Rep. Casar, Greg [D-TX-35], Rep. Pocan, Mark [D-WI-2], Rep. Goldman, Daniel S. [D-NY-10], Rep. Simon, Lateefah [D-CA-12], Rep. Craig, Angie [D-MN-2], Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large], Rep. Thanedar, Shri [D-MI-13]

Recent Actions

• 2026-01-14: Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Oversight and Government Reform, and Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
• 2026-01-14: Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Oversight and Government Reform, and Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
• 2026-01-14: Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Oversight and Government Reform, and Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
• 2026-01-14: Introduced in House
• 2026-01-14: Introduced in House

Bill Versions

• No Political Enemies Act — issued 2026-01-14 — PDF (17 pages)

Related Bills

• S. 3646 (119th Congress)