HILTON Act
- Bill Number
- H.R. 7551
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 2
- Policy Area
- Government Operations and Politics
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2026-02-12: Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
- Last Updated
- 2026-02-27T20:06:28Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
The HILTON Act (Halting Inappropriate Limits Targeting Officers Now Act) aims to protect federal law enforcement officers from discrimination in essential services by prohibiting federal agencies from contracting with businesses that refuse service to these officers based on their official duties.
Key Provisions
- Prohibition on Contracts: Heads of federal agencies (defined as executive agencies under U.S. law) cannot enter agreements for "covered services" with any entity that, in the past year:
- Refused a covered service to a federal law enforcement officer explicitly because of the officer's official duties.
- Maintained a policy allowing such refusals based on official duties.
- Covered Services: These include lodging (e.g., hotels), transportation, food and beverages, healthcare, vehicle rentals, property rentals, and storage.
- Treatment of Related Entities: Businesses under common control (e.g., subsidiaries or affiliates as defined in the Internal Revenue Code) are treated as a single entity for enforcement purposes.
- Waiver Options: Agencies can bypass the prohibition if:
- No comparable service provider is available within a 50-mile radius for a necessary service.
- The entity is a parent company that takes "sufficient remedial action" against a discriminating subsidiary.
- Scope: Applies to agreements entered after the bill's enactment.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
This legislation introduces a new federal contracting restriction not previously outlined in U.S. code. It builds on general anti-discrimination principles in federal procurement (e.g., under Title 41 of the U.S. Code) but specifically targets refusals of service to law enforcement officers, creating a targeted blacklist-like mechanism for non-compliant entities. No amendments to existing statutes are specified; it adds standalone prohibitions.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: Federal agencies may face increased administrative burdens in vetting contractors and verifying compliance, potentially limiting options for routine operational needs like travel or lodging, though waivers provide flexibility for urgent situations.
- On Citizens: Law enforcement officers gain stronger protections against service denials, enhancing their ability to perform duties without interference. Broader citizens may see indirect effects if agencies shift contracts to compliant providers, possibly affecting local economies.
- On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, as the bill focuses on domestic federal contracting; however, it could influence U.S. agencies' dealings with foreign-owned entities operating in the U.S. if they discriminate.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Federal Law Enforcement Officers: Primary beneficiaries, protected from discriminatory refusals in essential services.
- Federal Agencies: Responsible for compliance, including executive branch departments like the Department of Justice or Homeland Security that rely on these services.
- Service Providers: Businesses in hospitality, transportation, healthcare, and related sectors (e.g., hotels, airlines, rental companies) that contract with the government; non-compliant ones risk losing federal business.
- Taxpayers and Businesses: Indirectly affected through potential shifts in federal spending toward compliant entities.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal Implications: Enforces non-discrimination in federal contracting, potentially leading to enforcement actions or lawsuits if waivers are abused. It relies on Internal Revenue Code definitions for corporate control, ensuring broad application without loopholes.
- Constitutional Implications: Could intersect with First Amendment rights if refusals stem from protected speech or association (e.g., protests against law enforcement), though the bill focuses narrowly on official duties rather than viewpoints. No explicit challenges to due process or equal protection are addressed.
- Political Implications: Positions federal support for law enforcement by penalizing perceived anti-police actions, which may polarize debates on civil liberties versus public safety; introduced in a Republican-led effort, it reflects broader congressional priorities on protecting officers amid ongoing national discussions.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Recent Actions
- 2026-02-12: Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
- 2026-02-12: Introduced in House
- 2026-02-12: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- Halting Inappropriate Limits Targeting Officers Now Act — issued 2026-02-12 — PDF (3 pages)