A Democratic bill with 15 Democratic cosponsors · See all 15 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The "Don't Settle for Corruption Act" amends title 28 of the United States Code to change how certain compromise settlements are paid. It specifically addresses "covered settlements," which are compromise settlements involving suits by a President or former President against the United States, its agencies, or its officials. For these specific settlements, the Attorney General must report the terms to both Houses of Congress. A covered settlement is not considered approved unless Congress enacts a joint resolution approving it within 60 days of receiving the report.
Yes· 3 of 4
- Scored +5
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
Requires the Attorney General to report settlement terms of presidents to Congress.
- Scored +2
Does this make the government pay for what it commits to?
Increases oversight on large settlements involving the executive branch.
- Scored +1
Does this reduce what the federal government owes?
Adds congressional hurdles to payouts for presidential settlements, potentially reducing government expenditures.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this?
Makes it more difficult for former presidents to receive settlement payments from the government.
- Scored -2
Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this?
Increases congressional scrutiny on high-value settlements for former presidents.
- Scored -2
Would billionaires be better off under this?
Restricts the ease of payout for presidential legal settlements.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Congressional Oversight of Presidential Settlements: Section 2(e) and 2(f) require a joint resolution of Congress to approve "covered settlements." This ensures that settlements involving a President or former President are reviewed by elected representatives before being finalized.
-
Transparency of Terms: Section 2(d) requires the Attorney General to expeditiously submit a report of the terms of a covered settlement to both Houses of Congress. This provides a formal record of the terms being proposed.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Delayed Payments: Section 2(e) states that no covered settlement is approved unless a resolution is enacted within 60 days. This requirement for congressional action could potentially delay the finalization and payment of settlements for those involved in covered suits.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would billionaires be better off under this? — Restricts the ease of payout for presidential legal settlements. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — Makes it more difficult for former presidents to receive settlement payments from the government. Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this? — Increases congressional scrutiny on high-value settlements for former presidents.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Requires the Attorney General to report settlement terms of presidents to Congress.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — Increases oversight on large settlements involving the executive branch. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — By requiring congressional approval for covered settlements, it may prevent some payments. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — Adds congressional hurdles to payouts for presidential settlements, potentially reducing government expenditures.
- 6/18/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- 15 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
André CarsonDemocrat · Indiana
Judy ChuDemocrat · California
Gilbert CisnerosDemocrat · California
Danny DavisDemocrat · Illinois
Jimmy GomezDemocrat · California
Sara JacobsDemocrat · California
Jonathan JacksonDemocrat · Illinois
Ro KhannaDemocrat · California
Sydney Kamlager-DoveDemocrat · California
Sam LiccardoDemocrat · California
Eleanor NortonDemocrat · District of Columbia
Mark PocanDemocrat · Wisconsin
Jimmy PanettaDemocrat · California
Mike ThompsonDemocrat · California
Bonnie Watson ColemanDemocrat · New Jersey