The bill prohibits the obligation, expenditure, or disbursement of Federal funds to any entity that employs individuals who "condone and celebrate political violence and domestic terrorism," using the statutory definition of "domestic terrorism" in 18 U.S.C. 2331. It is a single-section measure that attaches a categorical funding bar to the employment relationship between a fund recipient and individuals whose public conduct or statements meet the undefined standard of "condone and celebrate."
This proposal matters because it replaces ordinary grant and contract eligibility rules with a speech-linked funding condition applied across federal programs. The measure raises immediate compliance and enforcement questions for grant recipients, contractors, regulatory agencies, and legal counsels — and it creates a likely flashpoint between efforts to limit support for violent extremism and constitutional protections for speech and association.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill bars any federal obligation, expenditure, or disbursement to an entity that employs individuals who "condone and celebrate" political violence or domestic terrorism, referencing the definition of "domestic terrorism" in 18 U.S.C. 2331. The bar is categorical: if an entity employs such an individual, federal funding must not flow.
Who It Affects
Recipients of federal grants, cooperative agreements, contracts, and other disbursements — including universities, nonprofits, state and local governments, and private contractors — along with federal agencies that manage those funds. Individual employees could trigger funding consequences for their employers based on speech or expressive conduct.
Why It Matters
The measure conditions federal dollars on employee speech-related conduct rather than the entity's own actions, which could force recipients to police employee expression, alter hiring or termination practices, and prompt litigation over vagueness and free-speech rights. Agencies would face new compliance and investigative burdens without clear implementing rules in the text.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
At face value the bill is short and simple: it tells federal agencies not to obligate, spend, or disburse money to any "entity" that employs a person who "condone[s] and celebrate[s] political violence and domestic terrorism." The text does not define "entity," "employs," or what specific conduct amounts to "condone and celebrate," but it does import the statutory definition of "domestic terrorism" from 18 U.S.C. 2331 for the terrorism term. That means the underlying acts referenced are tied to the federal criminal-law definition, while the speech-oriented predicates—condoning and celebrating—remain unspecified.
Because the bill is silent on procedures, agencies would have to decide how to identify disqualifying employees and how to act when they find one. Possible administrative paths include pre-award certifications, post-award monitoring, withholding payments, suspension or debarment referrals, or termination of agreements.
The bill uses funding-language—"obligated, expended, or otherwise disbursed"—so it reaches both authorization to spend and actual payment, giving agencies several legal hooks to block or claw back funds, but it does not create a private right of action or an administrative appeal framework.The practical consequences will depend on how "employs" is read. A broad reading would cover any person on payroll, contractors, interns, or even volunteers; a narrow reading might require a formal employment relationship.
Employers would likely change policies to limit exposure—adding social-media clauses, new standards in employee codes of conduct, or more aggressive background screening. Those changes could produce collateral harms: administrative burdens for small grantees, chilling of controversial but nonviolent political speech, and a litigation landscape focused on First Amendment challenges and due-process claims.Finally, the bill's cross-reference to 18 U.S.C. 2331 anchors it to a federal definition of terrorism but does not resolve questions about timeframes (current versus historical speech), scienter (intent), or whether private, off-duty political expression can trigger the funding ban.
Agencies implementing the law would confront line-drawing problems that the statutory text leaves to regulation, guidance, or adjudication.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill prohibits the obligation, expenditure, or disbursement of any Federal funds to an entity that employs individuals who "condone and celebrate political violence and domestic terrorism.", The phrase "domestic terrorism" is used by reference to the statutory definition in 18 U.S.C. 2331; the bill does not itself define "condone" or "celebrate.", The statutory language covers three distinct funding actions—obligation, expenditure, and disbursement—potentially enabling agencies to block awards at multiple stages.
The text contains no implementing provisions: it does not specify who makes determinations, what evidentiary standard applies, or what remedies or appeals an affected entity would have.
The bill is broad as to covered "entities" and "employment," but it does not specify exclusions or carve-outs for contractors, academic freedom, religious organizations, or political speech protections.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Categorical funding bar tied to employee speech-related conduct
This single operative section creates a flat prohibition on federal funding whenever an entity employs a person who condones or celebrates political violence or domestic terrorism. It ties the terrorism concept to 18 U.S.C. 2331, but leaves the key qualifiers—"condone" and "celebrate"—undefined. Practically, that shifts the question from whether an entity itself engaged in proscribed conduct to whether any employee's conduct or expression meets a subjective standard, which would prompt agencies to develop fact-finding procedures and possibly pre-award disclosures.
The mechanics in the language revolve entirely around funding verbs—"obligated, expended, or otherwise disbursed"—giving administrators latitude to deny, suspend, or terminate payments. Because the bill lacks implementing rules, agencies would have discretion in enforcement methods (e.g., certification requirements, monitoring programs, suspension or debarment actions), and recipients would face uncertainty about when and how the funding bar will be applied.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Victims and survivor advocacy groups — they gain a statutory instrument aimed at denying federal support to organizations associated with individuals who publicly celebrate or condone political violence, reinforcing a government stance against violent extremism.
- Competing organizations and grantees that avoid association with extremist speech — they may benefit competitively if entities linked to condoning individuals are removed from federal funding pools.
- Policymakers and administrators seeking leverage to deter violent-extremist sympathies within federally funded institutions — the bill provides a blunt tool to pressure employers to take disciplinary or preventive steps.
Who Bears the Cost
- Universities, nonprofits, state and local governments, and contractors that receive federal funds — they face new compliance uncertainties and may need to change hiring, monitoring, and personnel policies to avoid disqualification.
- Employees and potential hires — off-duty or private speech could expose employers to funding loss, creating a chilling effect on lawful political expression and associative activity.
- Federal agencies and grant-making offices — agencies will inherit investigative, evidentiary, and adjudicatory burdens to determine whether an employee's conduct meets the bill's standard, likely without additional resources or guidance.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between removing federal support from organizations associated with individuals who praise political violence—which advances public safety and moral clarity—and avoiding vague, overbroad funding conditions that chill lawful speech, enable selective enforcement, and impose heavy compliance burdens on a wide range of recipients.
The bill creates a legal and operational puzzle by linking funding eligibility to employee speech without providing the tools for fair, consistent application. The undefined terms "condone" and "celebrate" invite subjective judgments about intent and tone; is an ambiguous social-media post sufficient, or must there be explicit praise of a named violent act?
Courts will likely be asked to determine whether agency determinations violate the First Amendment by penalizing speech based on viewpoint, or whether the government may condition funds on the avoidance of supporting violent conduct. The statute's silence on procedures—notice, opportunity to cure, evidentiary standards, timelines, and remedies—means agencies could adopt divergent practices, producing uneven enforcement and bottlenecks in funding pipelines.
Operationally, recipients will face a choice between active policing of employees' speech and accepting litigation risk. Small organizations and those in partisan or controversial fields may incur disproportionate compliance costs, while large contractors could absorb legal defenses.
The cross-reference to 18 U.S.C. 2331 anchors the bill to a criminal-law concept but does not require a criminal conviction; administrative findings or publicly available statements could trigger disqualification, raising due-process issues. Finally, the provision's breadth risks politicized application: without clear, neutral evidence standards, determinations could reflect partisan pressures rather than consistent anti-violence enforcement.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.