Prohibiting Political Prosecutions Act of 2026
- Bill Number
- H.R. 7575
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 2
- Policy Area
- Law
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2026-02-13: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- Last Updated
- 2026-03-09T19:20:00Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose of the Legislation
The Prohibiting Political Prosecutions Act of 2026 aims to ensure that federal investigations, prosecutions, and related decisions by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and other agencies are free from political bias. It prohibits considering a person's political associations, activities, or beliefs when deciding to investigate, charge, or take action against them, and it strengthens safeguards against undue influence, such as from the White House, to promote impartial justice.
Key Provisions
- Prohibition on Political Considerations (Section 530E of Title 28, U.S. Code):
- Defines "applicable covered individuals" as key personnel, including FBI Director, special agents in charge, agency heads, U.S. Attorneys, and line prosecutors.
- Bars government attorneys and investigators from basing decisions to start or recommend prosecutions on a target's political or policy views, or using them to influence or alter those views.
- Requires an attestation (a sworn statement) in every criminal complaint, indictment, search warrant, or arrest warrant confirming no political motivation and, for charges, that evidence supports guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (the standard for conviction at trial).
- Allows individuals harmed by violations to sue the responsible official personally for damages in federal court.
- Clarifies that this does not limit the Attorney General's ability to set guidelines or identify other improper factors.
- Grand Jury Reforms (Amendments to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure):
- Requires prosecutors to inform grand juries (secret panels that decide if there's enough evidence for charges) about any exculpatory evidence (information that could clear the accused) they know of, and any impeachment information (evidence that could undermine a witness's credibility).
- Mandates disclosure, upon request, of how many grand jurors voted to indict on each count and how many were present.
- Permits defendants to move for dismissal of charges if they suspect political bias; courts must privately review (in camera) grand jury records to check for sufficient evidence, absence of political references, and proper disclosure of exculpatory or impeachment material.
- If bias or insufficient evidence is found, the court dismisses the charges; re-indictment requires court approval confirming no political motive.
- Ban on White House Influence (Section 530F of Title 28, U.S. Code):
- Prohibits the President or White House employees from directing DOJ on specific criminal cases.
- Bars DOJ employees from considering such directions in their decisions.
- Reporting Requirements (Amendments to Section 530B of Title 28, U.S. Code):
- Obligates all DOJ and FBI employees to report any suspected political influence in investigations or charging to the DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) and Office of the Inspector General (OIG).
- Requires OPR and OIG to investigate complaints within 5 business days and complete them within 1 month, then disclose details (including the complaint, steps taken, and findings) to relevant congressional committees within 5 business days of completion.
- Disclosures are confidential and exempt from public records laws (like the Freedom of Information Act).
- Severability Clause:
- If any part is ruled unconstitutional, the rest remains in effect.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- Introduces explicit bans on political motivations in prosecutions, which were not previously codified in this way; prior law relied on general ethical guidelines and the Justice Manual.
- Adds mandatory attestations to legal filings and requires grand juries to receive exculpatory and impeachment evidence—expanding beyond current rules that do not mandate this for grand juries (though similar requirements exist for trials).
- Codifies a strict separation between the White House and DOJ decisions, building on norms but making violations enforceable.
- Enhances oversight by mandating swift reporting and congressional notifications, unlike existing voluntary or less structured reporting mechanisms.
- Creates new civil remedies and dismissal procedures tied to political bias claims, which could lead to more judicial scrutiny of prosecutions.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: Increases administrative burdens for DOJ, FBI, and U.S. Attorneys through required attestations, evidence disclosures, and reporting, potentially slowing investigations. It may deter politically motivated actions but could invite more internal complaints and lawsuits against officials, straining resources.
- On Citizens: Provides stronger protections against biased federal probes, allowing individuals (especially public figures or activists) to challenge politically driven cases more effectively via lawsuits or dismissal motions. This could reduce fear of selective prosecution but might complicate legitimate cases if overuse leads to delays.
- On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though it could enhance U.S. credibility in promoting rule of law abroad by demonstrating commitment to impartial justice; indirectly, it might affect how foreign nationals view U.S. legal processes in cross-border cases.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- DOJ and FBI Personnel: U.S. Attorneys, prosecutors, investigators, and agency leaders face new restrictions, reporting duties, and personal liability risks.
- Investigated or Prosecuted Individuals: Gain rights to sue, seek dismissals, and access more grand jury information, particularly those with political profiles.
- Congress: Receives enhanced oversight through mandatory disclosures, enabling better monitoring of executive branch actions.
- White House and Executive Branch: Restricted from influencing DOJ, potentially limiting political leverage over law enforcement.
- Courts: Handle more motions for review and civil suits, increasing workload on federal judges.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: Reinforces due process rights under the Fifth Amendment (fair grand jury proceedings) by mandating balanced evidence presentation, but could face challenges if seen as overly prescriptive on prosecutorial discretion—a traditional executive power.
- Constitutional: Addresses separation of powers by insulating DOJ from White House interference, aligning with norms of judicial independence, though it might spark debates on executive authority over law enforcement. The severability clause helps preserve the law if parts are struck down.
- Political: Seeks to depoliticize federal justice amid concerns over partisan prosecutions (e.g., in high-profile cases), potentially restoring public trust but risking accusations of targeting specific administrations. It could influence election-year dynamics by deterring perceived abuses, without favoring any party.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Rep. Goldman, Daniel S. [D-NY-10]
Cosponsors (3)
Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large], Rep. Gomez, Jimmy [D-CA-34], Rep. Larson, John B. [D-CT-1]
Recent Actions
- 2026-02-13: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- 2026-02-13: Introduced in House
- 2026-02-13: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- Prohibiting Political Prosecutions Act of 2026 — issued 2026-02-13 — PDF (12 pages)