BILLS 4 House · 3 Senate · 1 Context
RepublicanDemocratBipartisan
House 4 bills
Rep. J. Raskin
+106
H.R. 8914 · Discharge petition launched June 26, 2026 · Supersedes prior Raskin bills (H.R. 8914 as originally introduced & H.R. 8309)
Full title: No Corrupt Agreements Requiring Taxpayer Expenditures Benefitting Lawbreakers and Assorted Non-Prosecution Covenants, Handouts, and Emoluments Act
Co-sponsors (106): Adams (D-NC), Amo (D-RI), Ansari (D-AZ), Balint (D-VT), Barragán (D-CA), Bell (D-MO), Bera (D-CA), Beyer (D-VA), Boyle (D-PA), Budzinski (D-IL), Carbajal (D-CA), Case (D-HI), Castor (D-FL), Castro (D-TX), Cisneros (D-CA), Cleaver (D-MO), Cohen (D-TN), Correa (D-CA), Courtney (D-CT), Craig (D-MN), Crockett (D-TX), Crow (D-CO), Dean (D-PA), DeGette (D-CO), DelBene (D-WA), DeSaulnier (D-CA), Dexter (D-OR), Escobar (D-TX), Espaillat (D-NY), Evans (D-PA), Foster (D-IL), Frankel (D-FL), Friedman (D-CA), García Chuy (D-IL), Garcia Robert (D-CA), Goldman (D-NY), Grijalva (D-AZ), Hayes (D-CT), Horsford (D-NV), Hoyer (D-MD), Hoyle (D-OR), Huffman (D-CA), Jackson (D-IL), Jayapal (D-WA), Johnson (D-GA), Kamlager-Dove (D-CA), Kelly (D-IL), Khanna (D-CA), Krishnamoorthi (D-IL), Larsen (D-WA), Latimer (D-NY), Levin (D-CA), Liccardo (D-CA), Lieu (D-CA), Lofgren (D-CA), Lynch (D-MA), Magaziner (D-RI), McBath (D-GA), McBride (D-DE), McClellan (D-VA), McClain Delaney (D-MD), McCollum (D-MN), McGarvey (D-KY), McGovern (D-MA), Mejia (D-NJ), Meng (D-NY), Min (D-CA), Morelle (D-NY), Morrison (D-MN), Moulton (D-MA), Mrvan (D-IN), Nadler (D-NY), Neguse (D-CO), Norton (D-DC), Olszewski (D-MD), Omar (D-MN), Pelosi (D-CA), Pettersen (D-CO), Pingree (D-ME), Ramirez (D-IL), Randall (D-WA), Ross (D-NC), Salinas (D-OR), Sánchez (D-CA), Scanlon (D-PA), Schakowsky (D-IL), Scholten (D-MI), Schrier (D-WA), Sewell (D-AL), Sherman (D-CA), Simon (D-CA), Smith (D-WA), Stanton (D-AZ), Subramanyam (D-VA), Takano (D-CA), Thanedar (D-MI), Thompson (D-MS), Titus (D-NV), Tonko (D-NY), Torres Norma (D-CA), Torres Ritchie (D-NY), Trahan (D-MA), Walkinshaw (D-VA), Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), Waters (D-CA), Watson Coleman (D-NJ) · Congress.gov

The most aggressive House bill — and the first to move via discharge petition. Consolidates and supersedes Raskin's earlier proposals into a single vehicle. Three distinct targets in one bill: it blocks taxpayer funds from covering anyone in the Trump–IRS settlement, voids Acting AG Blanche's audit-immunity addendum (Raskin calls it the “Super Pardon”), and permanently bars Jan. 6 defendants and the President from tapping the Judgment Fund in the future.

  • Blocks all federal funds — including the Judgment Fund — from paying any claim under the Trump–IRS settlement
  • Voids Acting AG Blanche's IRS audit-immunity addendum, which Raskin calls a “Super Pardon” layered on top of the original settlement
  • Permanently bars Jan. 6 defendants and the President from accessing the Judgment Fund for future claims
  • Permanently amends 31 U.S.C. § 1304 to close the loophole that made the Anti-Weaponization Fund possible
  • Bars payouts to the President, VP, family members, cabinet officials, political appointees, and presidentially-controlled entities
  • Requires Treasury to report to Congress all payments over $100,000 (name, case type, attorneys); 120-day hold on payments over $250,000
  • Authorizes the AG to sue to recover any improperly disbursed funds

Two petitions are in play. Rep. Raskin’s petition on H.R. 8914 (NO CARTE BLANCHE Act) went live June 26 — the broader, more aggressive vehicle, needing 6 Republicans to reach 218. Fitzpatrick’s petition (H.R. 8955) was filed mid-June but faces leadership headwinds. No Republican co-signers have been publicly confirmed on either petition.

Key names to watch: Any House Republican in a competitive district · Members who publicly criticized the Fund but haven’t signed

The discharge petition is the first mechanism in this tracker that could force a floor vote without Republican leadership's blessing — if six Republicans sign. Every Republican signature is a public break with leadership on the fund. Raskin's framing of the Blanche addendum as a “Super Pardon” adds a dimension the other bills don't address.
119TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION H. R. 8914 (as amended in the nature of a substitute) To amend section 1304 of title 31, United States Code, to restrict payments for compromise settlements or awards, and to nullify the non-prosecution immunity addendum to the May 18, 2026 settlement agreement. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Mr. RASKIN introduced the following amendment in the nature of a substitute. A BILL To amend section 1304 of title 31, United States Code, to restrict payments for compromise settlements or awards, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the "No Corrupt Agreements Requiring Taxpayer Expenditures Benefitting Lawbreakers and Assorted Non-Prosecution Covenants, Handouts, and Emoluments Act" or the "NO CARTE BLANCHE Act". SEC. 2. RESTRICTION ON FEDERAL FUNDS IN CONNECTION WITH TRUMP, ET AL. V. IRS, ET AL. No Federal funds may be used to create or make payments to fund the compensation fund created by the settlement agreement entered into on May 18, 2026, in connection with the disposition of Trump, et al. v. IRS, et al., Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-20609-KMW, before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. SEC. 3. NULLIFICATION OF IMMUNITY ADDENDUM. The non-prosecution and audit-immunity addendum to the May 18, 2026 settlement agreement in Trump, et al. v. IRS, et al. -- including any provision that purports to confer immunity from investigation, audit, or prosecution on the President, his family, or their business entities -- is hereby declared null, void, and without legal effect. No Federal funds, personnel, or authority may be used to implement, enforce, or give effect to any such addendum. SEC. 4. RESTRICTION ON CERTAIN PAYMENTS FOR COMPROMISE SETTLEMENTS OR AWARDS. Section 1304 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: "(e) A compromise settlement or award may not be paid to-- "(1) the President or Vice President; "(2) the parent, spouse, child, or spouse of a child of the President or Vice President; "(3) a presidentially-owned entity; "(4) any member of the cabinet; "(5) any individual who is employed by the Executive Office of the President who is paid at a rate of basic pay equivalent to or exceeding the GS-15 level; "(6) a political appointee; and "(7) an individual who served in a position described under paragraph (4), (5), or (6) during the period for which the President who appointed such individual is in Office, including any period after such individual leaves such a position. "(f) A compromise settlement or award may not be paid with respect to a claim alleging harm resulting from an investigation, prosecution, or conviction for an offense related to-- "(1) the January 6, 2021, attack on the United States Capitol; "(2) interference in the 2016 presidential election by a foreign government; "(3) the same facts or circumstances as a civil action filed against the United States that was dismissed with prejudice; or "(4) any claim by or on behalf of the President or Vice President against the Internal Revenue Service or any other Federal agency. "(g)(1) Not later than 30 days after the date on which a payment of more than $100,000 is made for a compromise settlement or award in accordance with this section, and notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of the Treasury shall report to the Chair and Ranking Members of the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate, the following: "(A) The name of the plaintiff or awardee of such settlement or award. "(B) The type of judgment for which the settlement or award was made. "(C) The name of each attorney representing the plaintiff or awardee. "(D) The name of each agency involved in the claim and the name of each official approving such settlement or award. "(E) A brief description of the facts and circumstances that gave rise to the settlement or award and the authority authorizing such settlement or award. "(2) The Secretary of the Treasury shall provide notice to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and of the Senate prior to authorizing a payment for a compromise settlement or award in accordance with this section if that payment-- "(A) is of more than $250,000 to be made for a compromise settlement or award in accordance with this section; or "(B) is to be made on the basis of imminent litigation or suit against the United States, or against its agencies or officials upon obligations or liabilities of the United States. "(3) A payment for which a notice is required to be submitted under paragraph (2) may not be made for a period of 120 days after the date on which such notice is received. "(h) In the case that a compromise settlement or award is made in violation of subsection (e) or (f), the Attorney General may bring a civil action against a plaintiff or awardee who received a settlement or award in violation of subsection (e) or (f) in an appropriate district court for injunctive relief and repayment of such settlement or award. "(i) Nothing in this section, or an amendment made by this section, shall be construed to prohibit Congress from appropriating funds for a payment prohibited by this section on an individual per claim basis. "(j) A settlement or award made on or after January 20, 2025, (including any settlement or award entered into prior to the date of the enactment of this subsection) shall be subject to the requirements of subsections (e) through (h). "(k) The Secretary of the Treasury may not establish a compensation fund, or approve a payment to such a fund, and no Federal funds may be used by the Secretary to so establish such a fund or approve such a payment-- "(1) pursuant to a compromise settlement with the President; or "(2) if such payment would be in violation of subsection (e) or (f) if made from the Judgment Fund. "(l) In this section-- "(1) the term 'presidentially-owned entity' means a corporation, association, partnership, limited liability company, limited liability partnership, other legal entity, or sole proprietorship in which the President or Vice President has an ownership stake, except that such term does not include an entity in which more than 100 people have an ownership stake and the President or Vice President, as applicable, holds no more than five percent in a beneficial ownership stake and that-- "(A) issues securities registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78l); "(B) is an investment company registered pursuant to section 8 of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-8) that does not have a stated policy of concentrating the investments of the investment company in any industry, business, single country other than the United States, or bonds of a single State within the United States; or "(C) is a unit investment trust, as defined in section 4 of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-4) that-- "(i) is a regulated investment company, as defined in section 851 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and "(ii) does not have a stated policy of concentrating the investments of the investment company in any industry, business, single country other than the United States, or bonds of a single State within the United States; and "(2) the term 'political appointee' shall have the meaning given such term in section 9803 of title 5.".
Text reformatted from source document at https://democrats-judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/democrats-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/judgement_xml-004.pdf. Formatting adjusted for readability. Not an official document — errors may exist. Sec. 3 (immunity addendum nullification) is the new provision added for the NO CARTE BLANCHE Act; Sec. 2 and Sec. 4 derive from H.R. 8914 as originally introduced. Verify against official text when available on Congress.gov.
Rep. M. Thompson
+46
H.R. 8910 · Introduced May 19, 2026
Co-sponsors (46): Amo (D-RI), Bell (D-MO), Beyer (D-VA), Boyle (D-PA), Brown Shontel (D-OH), Chu (D-CA), Cisneros (D-CA), Crockett (D-TX), Davis Danny (D-IL), Dean (D-PA), DeLauro (D-CT), DelBene (D-WA), Doggett (D-TX), Evans (D-PA), Foushee (D-NC), Frankel (D-FL), Garamendi (D-CA), Garcia Robert (D-CA), Gomez (D-CA), Horsford (D-NV), Huffman (D-CA), Jayapal (D-WA), Kennedy (D-NY), Khanna (D-CA), Larson (D-CT), Mannion (D-NY), Matsui (D-CA), Moore Gwen (D-WI), Mullin (D-CA), Neguse (D-CO), Norton (D-DC), Panetta (D-CA), Pingree (D-ME), Pocan (D-WI), Quigley (D-IL), Salinas (D-OR), Sánchez Linda (D-CA), Schakowsky (D-IL), Schneider (D-IL), Scholten (D-MI), Sewell (D-AL), Stansbury (D-NM), Subramanyam (D-VA), Suozzi (D-NY), Watson Coleman (D-NJ), Williams Nikema (D-GA)

A tax-based approach: imposes a 100% tax on any payment received from a fund derived from a civil action filed by a former president or their family against the U.S. Effectively renders any such payout worthless. Also requires full public disclosure of all such payments.

  • 100% excise tax on “specified settlement fund payments” from any fund arising out of a civil action filed by a former president, their family, or a controlled entity against the U.S.
  • Payment excluded from gross income (100% tax is the only tax that applies)
  • 50% additional penalty for willful failure to pay or evasion
  • Fiduciaries must file returns and provide annual statements to recipients by January 31
  • Treasury must make all returns publicly available within one month of receipt; $10,000 penalty per failure to file
  • Applies to amounts received on or after May 20, 2026
Referred to the Republican-controlled House Ways and Means Committee, with no sign leadership intends to schedule it. Its Senate companion (S. 4616) faces the same stall in the Finance Committee.
119TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION H. R. 8910 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a tax on specified settlement fund payments, and for other purposes. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MAY 19, 2026 Mr. THOMPSON of California (for himself, Mr. DOGGETT, Mr. LARSON of Connecticut, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Ms. SANCHEZ, Ms. SEWELL, Ms. DELBENE, Ms. CHU, Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin, Mr. BOYLE of Pennsylvania, Mr. BEYER, Mr. EVANS of Pennsylvania, Mr. SCHNEIDER, Mr. PANETTA, Mr. GOMEZ, Mr. HORSFORD, and Mr. SUOZZI) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means A BILL To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a tax on specified settlement fund payments, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the "Stop Letting United States Heads Funnel Unauthorized Nontransparent Dollars Act of 2026" or the "SLUSH FUND Act of 2026". SEC. 2. IMPOSITION OF TAX ON SPECIFIED SETTLEMENT FUND PAYMENTS. (a) IN GENERAL.—There is hereby imposed on any taxpayer for any taxable year a tax equal to 100 percent of any specified settlement fund payment received by such taxpayer during such taxable year. (b) SPECIFIED SETTLEMENT FUND PAYMENT.—The term means any amount received by a taxpayer from any fund, trust, or account the assets of which are derived from the outcome (whether by settlement, verdict, or otherwise) of any civil action filed by a specified person against the United States (or any agency or instrumentality thereof). (c) SPECIFIED PERSON.—Any individual who has served as President, any member of their family (spouse and relatives described in IRC §152(d)(2)(A)–(G)), and any person controlled by one or more such individuals. (d) SPECIAL RULES.—Excluded from gross income. 50% penalty for willful failure to pay or evasion. (e) REPORTING.—Every trustee, administrator, or fiduciary making such a payment must file a return with Treasury and provide a statement to the recipient by January 31. Treasury must make returns publicly available within one month. $10,000 penalty per failure to file. (f) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Applies to amounts received on or after May 20, 2026.
Text converted from source document at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-119hr8910ih/pdf/BILLS-119hr8910ih.pdf. Formatting may differ from the original for readability. Not an official document — errors may exist. For critical use, consult the source above. Note: this drawer contains an adapted summary for readability; the source PDF contains the full statutory text.
Rep. B. Fitzpatrick
+13
H.R. 8955 · Introduced May 21, 2026
Co-introducer (1): Suozzi (D-NY)
Co-sponsors (12): Boyle (D-PA), Bynum (D-OR), Case (D-HI), Conaway (D-NJ), Davids (D-KS), Goldman (D-NY), Goodlander (D-NH), Horsford (D-NV), Panetta (D-CA), Pettersen (D-CO), Riley (D-NY), Ross (D-NC)

Two pages. Simple. Says: no federal money may be used to pay any claim submitted to the Anti-Weaponization Fund. That's it — a clean, narrow prohibition that's hard to argue with.

  • Total funding ban — no federal dollars to the Fund, period
  • Covers the Judgment Fund (the specific pot of money being tapped)
  • Focused and short — harder to paint as partisan overreach
The only bipartisan bill in the tracker. Fitzpatrick filed a discharge petition in mid-June but faced immediate pushback from Republican leadership. The bill is still formally alive, though the Raskin petition (H.R. 8914) has emerged as the leading discharge vehicle.
119TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION H. R. __ To prohibit the use of Federal funds for the payment of claims submitted to the Anti-Weaponization Fund. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Mr. FITZPATRICK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on _______________ A BILL To prohibit the use of Federal funds for the payment of claims submitted to the Anti-Weaponization Fund. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the “Bipartisan Transparency for American Taxpayers Act”. SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS FOR PAYMENT OF CLAIMS SUBMITTED TO ANTI-WEAPONIZATION FUND. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Federal funds, including funds appropriated under section 1304 of title 31, United States Code, may be used for the payment of any claim submitted to the Anti-Weaponization Fund, established by the Department of Justice on May 18, 2026.
Text converted from source document at https://fitzpatrick.house.gov/_cache/files/4/5/457f16a4-7199-4d45-9488-a251f79a9c12/879F7B68BD9F1FA10860C589DF7DDB1D7D624B5FE3848DD52B2385E4A8B4B6B2.bipartisan-protecting-transparency-for-american-taxpayers-act.pdf. Formatting may differ from the original for readability. Not an official document — errors may exist. For critical use, consult the source above.
Official press release
Rep. M. Pocan
H.R. 9075 · Introduced May 29, 2026

The narrowest tax-mechanism bill. Imposes a 100% tax specifically on payments from funds established as a result of a civil action filed by the President of the United States against the Internal Revenue Service — scoped directly to the Trump v. IRS origin case, no broader.

  • 100% tax on payments from any fund established from a civil action filed by the President against the IRS
  • Payment excluded from gross income (the 100% tax is the only tax that applies)
  • Three pages — the shortest bill on the tracker; no reporting requirements, no penalty provisions, no family/entity coverage
  • Solo sponsor, no co-sponsors at introduction; no Senate companion
Referred to the Republican-controlled House Ways and Means Committee with no path to a hearing under current leadership. Its narrow scope — limited to the Trump v. IRS lawsuit specifically — may make it more legally precise but less useful as a lasting precedent.
119TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION H. R. 9075 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a tax on payments received from any settlement fund established as a result of a civil action filed by the President of the United States against the Internal Revenue Service. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MAY 29, 2026 Mr. POCAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means A BILL Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the "Tax the Grift Act". SEC. 2. IMPOSITION OF TAX ON QUALIFIED SETTLEMENT FUND PAYMENTS. (a) IN GENERAL.—There is hereby imposed on any taxpayer for any taxable year a tax equal to 100 percent of any qualified settlement fund payment received by such taxpayer during such taxable year. (b) QUALIFIED SETTLEMENT FUND PAYMENT.—The term means any amount received by a taxpayer from any fund established as a result of a civil action filed by the President of the United States against the Internal Revenue Service. (c) SPECIAL RULES.— (1) ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.—Tax imposed by this section treated as a tax imposed by subtitle A for purposes of subtitle F. (2) EXCLUSION FROM GROSS INCOME.—Gross income does not include any qualified settlement fund payment received. (d) NO DEDUCTION FROM INCOME TAX.—Section 275(a)(6) amended to insert "50B," after "50A,". (e) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Applies to amounts received after the date of enactment.
Text converted from source document at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-119hr9075ih/pdf/BILLS-119hr9075ih.pdf. Formatting may differ from the original for readability. Not an official document — errors may exist. For critical use, consult the source above.
CONTEXT BILL 1 bill
Rep. L. Gooden
+9
H.R. 7387 · Introduced February 5, 2026 · Referred to House Judiciary Committee
Co-sponsors (9): Fry (R-SC), McDowell (R-NC), Moore Barry (R-AL), Ogles (R-TN), Palmer (R-AL), Rouzer (R-NC), Roy (R-TX), Tenney (R-NY), Tiffany (R-WI)

A Republican-sponsored bill predating the Anti-Weaponization Fund by three months. Addresses a different practice: DOJ settlement agreements that directed money to third-party nonprofits rather than victims or the Treasury — a pattern associated with Obama-era enforcement actions. Not targeted at presidential lawsuits or the Judgment Fund.

  • Bars government officials from entering or enforcing settlements directing payments to third parties — unless payments directly remedy actual harm or compensate for services rendered
  • Violators subject to same penalties as violations of 31 U.S.C. § 3302
  • Annual reporting by each agency head to CBO on qualifying settlement payments (7-year sunset)
  • Annual IG audit, published publicly, of settlements made in violation of the Act
Does not directly address the Anti-Weaponization Fund, but demonstrates that concerns about executive-branch control of settlement dollars are not exclusively partisan.
119TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION H. R. 7387 To limit donations made pursuant to settlement agreements to which the United States is a party, and for other purposes. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FEBRUARY 5, 2026 Mr. GOODEN (for himself, Ms. TENNEY, Mr. ROUZER, Mr. MOORE of Alabama, Mr. TIFFANY, Mr. ROY, Mr. OGLES, Mr. PALMER, Mr. FRY, and Mr. MCDOWELL) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary A BILL Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the "Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2026". SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON DONATIONS MADE PURSUANT TO SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS. (a) LIMITATION.—An official or agent of the Government may not enter into or enforce any settlement agreement directing payment to any person or entity other than the United States, unless that payment provides restitution or directly remedies actual harm caused by the settling party, or constitutes payment for services rendered in connection with the case. (b) PENALTY.—Violations subject to same penalties as 31 U.S.C. § 3302. (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Applies to settlement agreements entered on or after enactment. (d) DEFINITION.—"Settlement agreement" means a settlement agreement resolving a civil action or potential civil action. (e) REPORTS.—Agency heads must submit annual reports to CBO on qualifying settlements, including parties, source of funds, and distribution. 7-year sunset. No additional appropriations. (f) ANNUAL AUDIT.—Agency Inspectors General must submit and publicly post annual reports on any settlements entered into in violation of this Act, to the Senate and House Judiciary, Budget, and Appropriations Committees. No additional appropriations.
Text converted from source document at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-119hr7387ih/pdf/BILLS-119hr7387ih.pdf. Formatting may differ from the original for readability. Not an official document — errors may exist. For critical use, consult the source above.
Senate 3 bills
Sen. A. Schiff
+2
S. 4644 · Introduced June 1, 2026
Co-sponsors: Sen. M. Kelly (D-AZ), Sen. E. Slotkin (D-MI)

A lean, structural fix. Amends the Judgment Fund statute (31 U.S.C. § 1304) to bar any payout arising from a lawsuit filed by a sitting President or VP — retroactive to January 20, 2025. Doesn't enumerate categories of excluded individuals; instead targets the act of a president suing his own government at the root.

  • Amends 31 U.S.C. § 1304 (the Judgment Fund statute) to bar any judgment, award, or compromise settlement arising from a lawsuit filed by a sitting President or VP
  • Applies to any pending case or cause of action arising on or after January 20, 2025
  • Two pages — narrow and structural; does not name Trump, enumerate excluded categories, or include transparency or clawback provisions
Remains in committee. The bill targets the president-as-plaintiff loophole at the statutory level rather than enumerating excluded individuals, making it potentially more appealing to Republicans who are wary of the precedent any future administration could exploit. The Schumer motion to commit on June 4 drew on this bill's framework.
119TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION S. __ To provide for limitations on judgments, awards, and compromise settlements under section 1304 of title 31, United States Code. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Mr. SCHIFF (for himself, Mr. KELLY, and Ms. SLOTKIN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on _______________ A BILL To provide for limitations on judgments, awards, and compromise settlements under section 1304 of title 31, United States Code. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the "Drain the Slush Fund Act". SEC. 2. JUDGMENTS, AWARDS, AND COMPROMISE SETTLEMENTS. (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1304 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: "(e) No judgment, award, compromise settlement, interest, or costs shall be authorized for payments that arise out of a lawsuit or claim filed by the President or Vice President.". (b) APPLICABILITY.—This section, and the amendments made by this section, shall apply to any pending case or any cause of action arising on or after January 20, 2025.
Text converted from source document at https://www.kelly.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Drain-the-Slush-Fund-Act-FINAL-TEXT.pdf. Formatting may differ from the original for readability. Not an official document — errors may exist. For critical use, consult the source above.
MEDIA COVERAGE: The Hill
Sen. R. Wyden
+2
S. 4616 · Introduced May 21, 2026 · Senate companion to H.R. 8910 (Thompson et al.)
Co-sponsors (2): Sen. J. Hickenlooper (D-CO), Sen. C. Schumer (D-NY)

100% tax on settlement payments received from any fund arising out of a civil action filed by a former president or family against the U.S., with full public disclosure requirements. Identical text to H.R. 8910.

Referred to the Senate Finance Committee, where Sen. Wyden serves as ranking member — giving him a platform to press the issue publicly even as the bill stalls under Republican committee control.
119TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION S. 4616 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a tax on specified settlement fund payments, and for other purposes. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES MAY 21, 2026 Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. SCHUMER) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance A BILL To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a tax on specified settlement fund payments, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the "Stop Letting United States Heads Funnel Unauthorized Nontransparent Dollars Act of 2026" or the "SLUSH FUND Act of 2026". SEC. 2. IMPOSITION OF TAX ON SPECIFIED SETTLEMENT FUND PAYMENTS. (a) IN GENERAL.—Subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new chapter: "CHAPTER 50B—SPECIFIED SETTLEMENT FUND PAYMENTS "SEC. 5000E. IMPOSITION OF TAX ON SPECIFIED SETTLEMENT FUND PAYMENTS. "(a) IN GENERAL.—There is hereby imposed on any taxpayer for any taxable year a tax equal to 100 percent of any specified settlement fund payment received by such taxpayer during such taxable year. "(b) SPECIFIED SETTLEMENT FUND PAYMENT.—For purposes of this section— "(1) IN GENERAL.—The term 'specified settlement fund payment' means, with respect to any taxpayer for any taxable year, any amount received by such taxpayer during such taxable year from any fund, trust, or account the assets of which are derived from the outcome (whether by settlement, verdict, or otherwise) of any civil action which was filed by a specified person against the United States (or any agency or instrumentality thereof). "(2) SPECIFIED PERSON.— "(A) IN GENERAL.—The term 'specified person' means— "(i) any individual who has served as President of the United States, "(ii) any member of the family of such individual, and "(iii) any person controlled (based on principles similar to the principles which apply for purposes of section 52(b)) by one or more individuals described in clause (i) or (ii). "(B) MEMBER OF THE FAMILY.—The term 'member of the family' means, with respect to any individual described in subparagraph (A)(i)— "(i) the spouse of such individual, and "(ii) any individual who bears a relationship to such individual which is described in subparagraphs (A) through (G) of section 152(d)(2). "(c) SPECIAL RULES.— "(1) ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.—For purposes of subtitle F, any tax imposed by this section shall be treated as a tax imposed by subtitle A. "(2) EXCLUSION FROM GROSS INCOME.—For purposes of chapter 1, the gross income of any taxpayer for any taxable year shall not include any specified settlement fund payment received by such taxpayer during such taxable year.". (b) NO DEDUCTION FROM INCOME TAX.—Section 275(a)(6) of such Code is amended by inserting "50B," after "50A,". (c) FAILURE TO PAY TAX ON SPECIFIED SETTLEMENT FUND PAYMENTS.—Part I of subchapter A of chapter 68 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new section: "SEC. 6660. FAILURE TO PAY TAX ON SPECIFIED SETTLEMENT FUND PAYMENTS. "Any taxpayer who, with respect to any taxable year— "(1) willfully fails to pay the tax imposed by section 5000E(a), or "(2) willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat such tax or the payment thereof, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be liable for a penalty of 50 percent of such tax for such taxable year.". (d) CLERICAL AMENDMENTS.— (1) The table of chapters for subtitle D of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new item: "Chapter 50B—SPECIFIED SETTLEMENT FUND PAYMENTS". (2) The table of sections for part I of subchapter A of chapter 68 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new item: "Sec. 6660. Failure to pay tax on specified settlement fund payments.". (e) EFFECTIVE DATES.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided by paragraph (2), the amendments made by this section shall apply with respect to amounts received on or after May 20, 2026. (2) FAILURE TO PAY TAX ON SPECIFIED SETTLEMENT FUND PAYMENTS.—The amendment made by subsection (c) shall apply with respect to taxable years ending on or after May 20, 2026. SEC. 3. RETURNS RELATING TO SPECIFIED SETTLEMENT FUND PAYMENTS. (a) IN GENERAL.—Subpart B of part III of subchapter A of chapter 61 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new section: "SEC. 6050BB. RETURNS RELATING TO SPECIFIED SETTLEMENT FUND PAYMENTS. "(a) REQUIREMENT OF REPORTING.—Every trustee, administrator, or other fiduciary who makes any specified settlement fund payment (as defined in section 5000E(b)) to any taxpayer during any taxable year shall make a return, according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the Secretary, setting forth— "(1) the aggregate amount of such payments received by such taxpayer during such taxable year, and "(2) the name and address of such taxpayer. "(b) STATEMENTS TO BE FURNISHED WITH RESPECT TO WHOM INFORMATION IS REQUIRED.—Every person required to make a return under subsection (a) shall furnish to each taxpayer whose name is required to be set forth in such return a written statement— "(1) showing the identity of the trustee, administrator, or other fiduciary making the specified settlement fund payment, "(2) showing the aggregate amount of such payments received by such taxpayer required to be shown on the return, and "(3) notifying that such payments are subject to the tax imposed by section 5000E(a). The written statement required under the preceding sentence shall be furnished to the taxpayer on or before January 31 of the year following the taxable year for which the return under subsection (a) was required to be made. "(c) PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF RETURNS.—The Secretary shall, not later than 1 month following receipt of a return under subsection (a), make such return publicly available (in such form and manner as the Secretary determines appropriate).". (b) FAILURE TO FILE RETURN WITH RESPECT TO SPECIFIED SETTLEMENT FUND PAYMENTS.—Section 6652 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: "(q) FAILURE TO FILE RETURN WITH RESPECT TO SPECIFIED SETTLEMENT FUND PAYMENTS.—In the case of any failure to make a return required under section 6050BB which contains the information required by such section on the date prescribed therefor, unless it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable cause, there shall be paid (on notice and demand by the Secretary and in the same manner as tax) by the person failing to file such return, an amount equal to $10,000 for each such failure.". (c) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections for subpart B of part III of subchapter A of chapter 61 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new item: "Sec. 6050BB. Returns relating to specified settlement fund payments.". (d) EFFECTIVE DATES.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided by paragraph (2), the amendments made by this section shall apply with respect to amounts paid on or after May 20, 2026. (2) FAILURE TO FILE RETURN WITH RESPECT TO SPECIFIED SETTLEMENT FUND PAYMENTS.—The amendment made by subsection (b) shall apply with respect to taxable years ending on or after May 20, 2026.
Text converted from source document at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-119s4616is/pdf/BILLS-119s4616is.pdf. Formatting may differ from the original for readability. Not an official document — errors may exist. For critical use, consult the source above.
Sen. E. Warren
+1
S. 4299 · Introduced April 15, 2026 · Originally companion to H.R. 8309 (Raskin–Min); House vehicle superseded by H.R. 8914 NO CARTE BLANCHE Act (discharge petition, June 2026)
Co-sponsor: Sen. C. Schumer (D-NY)

Permanently bars Presidents, VPs, their families, and controlled entities from collecting settlement payments from the U.S. government. Also bans filing administrative claims while in office and imposes strict transparency guardrails on any post-office claims. Identical text to H.R. 8309 (Raskin–Min).

  • Bans President, VP, spouse, dependent children, and any trust or entity they control from receiving settlement payments from the U.S.
  • Prohibits filing administrative claims for damages while in office
  • For court suits, limits awards to actual/compensatory damages only; requires appointment of an independent counsel to defend the agency
  • All filings and court proceedings must be made publicly accessible online, including audio recordings
  • Former Presidents/VPs may file post-office claims only with career employees leading review, no political appointees involved, and terms published in the Federal Register within 7 days
  • Penalties: disgorgement + civil fines up to $1M or payment amount + up to 5 years imprisonment; 10-year statute of limitations
Referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Its original House companion (H.R. 8309) has been superseded by Raskin’s broader NO CARTE BLANCHE Act (H.R. 8914), now the vehicle for a Democratic discharge petition. S. 4299’s permanent presidential-payout ban remains independently alive in the Senate, though a prohibition this sweeping may go further than Republicans who’ve shown openness to targeted anti-Fund measures are willing to follow.
119TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION S. 4299 To amend title 28, United States Code, to prohibit Presidents and Vice Presidents from receiving damages payments from the United States, and for other purposes. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES APRIL 15 (legislative day, APRIL 14), 2026 Ms. WARREN (for herself and Mr. SCHUMER) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary A BILL To amend title 28, United States Code, to prohibit Presidents and Vice Presidents from receiving damages payments from the United States, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the "Ban Presidential Plunder of Taxpayer Funds Act". SEC. 2. SETTLEMENT PAYMENTS. (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 161 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: "§ 2417. Rules for payments to current and former Presidents and Vice Presidents "(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the term 'covered individual' means— "(1) the President; "(2) the Vice President; "(3) a former President if the former Vice President of the former President is President; "(4) the spouse or dependent child of an individual described in paragraphs (1) through (3); and "(5) a trust (or a trustee acting on behalf of a trust) or any other legal vehicle or entity established, or serving, for the benefit of, or owned or controlled by, an individual described in paragraphs (1) through (4). "(b) BAN ON COVERED INDIVIDUALS OBTAINING SETTLEMENT PAYMENTS FROM THE UNITED STATES.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no covered individual may— "(1) recover or agree to recover damages, reimbursement, payment of attorney's fees, or any other payment, whether monetary or in kind, from the United States related to any administrative claim, civil action, or other claim against the United States through a settlement agreement, consent decree, administrative resolution of the claim, or similar arrangement; or "(2) direct any payment described in paragraph (1) to be made to a third party. "(c) BAN ON FILING ADMINISTRATIVE CLAIMS SEEKING DAMAGES.—No covered individual may file an administrative claim against the United States seeking to recover damages, reimbursement, payment of attorney's fees, or any other payment, whether monetary or in kind, from the United States. "(d) ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSING AND MAKING OF PAYMENTS.—No department or agency of the United States may administratively process or fulfill a claim for damages, reimbursement, payment of attorney's fees, or any other payment, whether monetary or in kind, filed by or on behalf of a covered individual, through a settlement agreement, consent decree, administrative resolution of the claim, or similar arrangement. "(e) GUARDRAILS FOR LAWSUITS SEEKING DAMAGES.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a court— "(1) may not award any damages other than actual or compensatory damages to a covered individual in a civil action against the United States under any other provision of law; and "(2) may award actual or compensatory damages to a covered individual in a civil action against the United States under any other provision of law only if— "(A) the covered individual agrees to the court appointment of an independent counsel, removable only by the court for cause, to represent the agency defending against the claim of the covered individual; "(B) the court appoints an independent counsel under subparagraph (A); and "(C) subject to the continued supervision of the court, any agency involved in the litigation cooperates with the independent counsel appointed under subparagraph (A), including by facilitating access to documents and employees necessary to complete the work of the independent counsel. "(f) TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENT.—In any action brought under subsection (e), the court shall make public and free of charge, via an online, publicly accessible, and user-friendly method all filings and proceedings in an action described in subsection (e), including through making the audio of each session conducted by the court during the proceedings available online contemporaneously with the session. "(g) GUARDRAILS FOR FORMER COVERED INDIVIDUALS.—After a President or Vice President leaves office, that former President or Vice President or other former covered individual described in paragraphs (3) through (5) of subsection (a) may file an administrative claim or suit against the United States and the United States may adjudicate or settle such claim or suit, if— "(1) the agency or department against which the claim or suit is filed appoints an expert, career employee who can only be removed for good cause to lead any review and adjudication of the claim during any administrative or settlement process; "(2) no executive branch employee or official appointed by a covered individual participates in any capacity in reviewing, litigating against, or adjudicating the claim or settlement; "(3) for any agreement to make a payment from the United States to a former covered individual, the terms of the agreement are published in the Federal Register not later than 7 days after the date on which the agreement is entered; "(4) for any payment from the United States to a former covered individual, the amount, date, and form of payment is published in the Federal Register not later than 7 days after the date on which the payment is made; and "(5) the agency or department against which the claim or suit is filed submits to the appropriate congressional committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives a copy of— "(A) the claim or suit prior to assessing the claim or suit; and "(B) any resulting approval or denial of the claim or settlement concurrently with notification to the claimant. "(h) PENALTIES.— "(1) IN GENERAL.—A covered individual who willfully violates subsection (b) or knowingly violates subsection (c) shall be subject to disgorgement of the payment, civil penalties of not more than the greater of $1,000,000 or an amount that is equal to the aggregate amount of any payment or payments, imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or any combination thereof. "(2) OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES.—Any individual who willfully causes a department or agency to violate subsection (d) shall be subject to civil penalties of not more than $50,000, imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or both. "(i) LIMITATIONS.— "(1) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THIS ACT.—No person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished, or made subject to civil monetary penalties, for a violation of this section, unless the indictment is found or the information is instituted within 10 years after such offense shall have been committed. "(2) TOLLING OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR UNDERLYING CLAIMS.—The limitations period for any claim a covered individual seeks to bring against the United States shall be tolled during the period beginning on the date on which the individual becomes a covered individual and ending on the day after the date on which the term in office of the covered individual expires. "(j) APPLICABILITY.—This section shall apply to any request for, processing of a request for, or recovery of damages, reimbursement, payment of attorney's fees, or other payment, whether monetary or in kind, occurring after the date of enactment of this section, regardless of when the related claim or cause of action arose.". (b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of sections for chapter 161 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: "2417. Rules for payments to current and former Presidents and Vice Presidents.".
Text converted from source document at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-119s4299is/pdf/BILLS-119s4299is.pdf. Formatting may differ from the original for readability. Not an official document — errors may exist. For critical use, consult the source above.
Legislative Progress
Introduced
Passed House
Passed Senate
To President
Becomes
Law
SENATE FLOOR ACTION VOTE RECORD
JUNE 2026 · S.2 VOTE-A-RAMA + UNANIMOUS CONSENT
UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST
Sen. C. Schumer
S. 4791 · Senate floor UC request · June 16, 2026
Objected by Sen. B. Hagerty (R-TN)

S. 4791 would have abolished the Anti-Weaponization Fund entirely and nullified Acting AG Blanche’s IRS audit-immunity addendum — the “Super Pardon” provision Raskin later targeted in the NO CARTE BLANCHE Act. Schumer sought unanimous consent on the Senate floor to pass it without a roll-call vote.

Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-TN) objected, blocking passage. A single objection is enough to defeat a unanimous consent request — no vote is held, no threshold required. The fund that Hagerty defended had, by then, already been informally abandoned; the immunity addendum, however, was still in effect and drew no equivalent Republican objection.

A notable asymmetry: the objection formally defended a fund Republicans had already conceded was likely dead, while leaving the still-active IRS audit-immunity addendum untouched. The UC attempt also established S. 4791 as the first Senate vehicle to combine fund abolition with immunity-addendum nullification — a framing Raskin’s discharge petition picked up in the House ten days later.
Roll Call, June 16 Senate Daily Press, June 16
MOTIONS TO COMMIT
Sen. C. Schumer
Offered to S.2 · Vote-A-Rama · June 4, 2026
Failed 49–50

A motion to commit is a procedural tool that returns a bill to committee. It requires only a simple majority, unlike amendments during a vote-a-rama, which are subject to points of order requiring 60 votes to waive.

The first amendment offered in the S.2 Vote-A-Rama. Would have sent the $70B ICE/Border Patrol reconciliation bill back to the Senate Judiciary Committee with instructions to add language permanently banning the Anti-Weaponization Fund. Required only a simple majority of 50 votes to pass.

Most Republicans voted against it, holding the bill together. Three Republicans — Collins (R-ME), Husted (R-OH), and Sullivan (R-AK), all facing competitive re-election races — voted yes. Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) was absent. The vote was held open for nearly three hours as Republicans debated internally over whether to allow an anti-weaponization amendment to the bill.

Despite falling short, the motion forced every Republican senator on record on the Fund. Even if Sen. Bennet was present to vote, a 50–50 tie would have failed without a VP tiebreak.
Yes (49) All present Democrats + Collins (R-ME), Husted (R-OH), Sullivan (R-AK). Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) was absent. No (50) All other Republicans. Even Republican fund critics — including Tillis and Murkowski — voted no, preferring to address the Fund through a separate amendment rather than kill the underlying bill.

Full roll call pending official Senate record publication.

FLOOR AMENDMENTS
Sen. C. Coons
Amendment to S.2 · Vote-a-rama · June 4, 2026
Blocked 54–45

One sentence. Prohibited the DOJ from using taxpayer funds to make settlement payments to any individual convicted of assaulting law enforcement officers at or around the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. Coons noted that Acting AG Blanche had refused to commit — when asked directly in a May 19 hearing — that such individuals would be ineligible for fund payouts.

Despite a majority of senators voting yes — 54 in favor — it fell six votes short of the 60-vote threshold. A majority of the Senate, including a significant number of Republicans, effectively voted to bar Jan. 6 assault convicts from the fund — but the procedural bar prevented it from becoming law.

The most politically stark vote of the vote-a-rama. A majority of the Senate — 54 votes — supported barring convicted cop-beaters from receiving taxpayer payouts. Republicans who voted no will have to defend that vote heading into the November midterms.
Yes (54) All present Democrats + approximately 9 Republicans. Collins (ME), Sullivan (AK), Husted (OH) confirmed crossovers; full Republican yes list pending official Senate record. No (45) Remaining Republicans.

Full roll call pending official Senate record publication.

Sen. Coons press release
Sen. B. Cassidy
Amendment to S.2 · Vote-a-rama · June 5, 2026
Blocked 53–46

Would have repurposed the Anti-Weaponization Fund entirely — restricting payouts exclusively to law enforcement officers who were killed or suffered injuries during the January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol, or their next of kin. Appropriated $100 million for that purpose, offset by a cut to ICE funding. A direct inversion of the fund's stated purpose.

Cassidy negotiated with the Senate parliamentarian for hours overnight, seeking a ruling that would allow the amendment to pass with a simple majority. The parliamentarian ruled it required 60 votes to waive a procedural objection — a threshold it could not reach despite majority support. Six Republicans joined all Democrats in voting yes.

The final and most dramatic fund-related vote of the vote-a-rama. A bipartisan majority — 53 senators — voted to redirect the Fund to injured Capitol Police and their families. Like the Coons vote, it passed by a majority but was blocked by the 60-vote procedural threshold. Cassidy held up S.2's final passage for hours to pursue it. S.2 passed 52–47 shortly after, with Murkowski the only Republican in opposition.
Yes (52) All present Democrats + 6 Republicans. Full Republican yes list pending official Senate record publication. No (47) Remaining Republicans.

Full roll call pending official Senate record publication.

Sen. T. Tillis
S.Amdt. 5452 to S.2 · Vote-a-rama · June 4, 2026
Blocked 15–84

Would have prohibited all federal funds — including the Judgment Fund (31 U.S.C. § 1304) — from being used to establish, administer, defend, or pay claims through the Anti-Weaponization Fund. It also stripped the AG's authority to negotiate any agreement that would fund covered activities and explicitly superseded the Trump v. IRS settlement. Uniquely, it would have redirected up to $1.7B to the DOJ's fraud enforcement division, and declared that no person acquires any legally enforceable right from the settlement unless Congress expressly authorizes it.

  • Total ban on federal funds for all Anti-Weaponization Fund activities
  • Strips AG's authority under 28 U.S.C. §§ 516 & 519 to negotiate any agreement that would fund covered activities
  • Explicitly supersedes the Trump v. IRS settlement and any AG orders implementing it
  • Declares no legally enforceable right arises from the settlement unless Congress authorizes it
  • Appropriates $1.7B to DOJ fraud enforcement (False Claims Act, procurement fraud, public corruption, forensic auditing)
  • Requires annual AG reporting to Congress on use of reallocated funds

Senate Budget Committee Chair Lindsey Graham (R-SC) raised a procedural point of order, arguing the amendment exceeded the budget authority allocated to the Judiciary Committee for the reconciliation package. Waiving the point of order required 60 votes — a threshold the amendment fell far short of. Most Democrats also voted no, arguing the $1.7B reallocation would simply create a new slush fund under the AG's control.

The 12 Republicans who voted yes — including Cornyn and Cassidy — represent a meaningful bloc of dissent within their own party. Tillis warned colleagues to take the "stump speech test": defend supporting the fund on the campaign trail. S.2 ultimately passed 52–47 on June 5, with Murkowski the only Republican in opposition.
Yes (15) Republicans: Tillis (NC), Cassidy (LA), Collins (ME), Cornyn (TX), Curtis (UT), Ernst (IA), Husted (OH), Moran (KS), Murkowski (AK), Rounds (SD), Sullivan (AK), Young (IN). Democrats: Hassan (NH), Klobuchar (MN), Cortez Masto (NV). No (84) All other senators. Most Democrats voted no, arguing the reallocation would simply create a new DOJ-controlled slush fund under a different name.
Amendment page (Congress.gov)

What to watch.

Key moments that could change everything. Filter by Court, Congress, or All.

TAKE ACTION

MAKE SOME NOISE.

Pressure works. Take 2 min to voice your view.

CONTACT YOUR REPRESENTATIVES

ZIP code lookup. Act now!

POST ON X

Share with #StopTheSlushFund

Share on Facebook

Spread the word to your network

Text a friend

Send the link directly

Copy the link

Paste anywhere — email, Slack, anywhere