This bill forbids the Department of Justice from using any funds made available to it to approve or facilitate a claim under chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code (the Federal Tort Claims Act), if that claim would result in a personal payment to the President. It explicitly covers settlements and any other payments issued under 31 U.S.C. §1304 (the Judgment Fund) that would be for the President’s personal benefit.
The statute draws a bright line around the use of DOJ-controlled funds to produce monetary benefit for the President, reaches payments tied to past and future appropriations, and relies on DOJ and Treasury processes for implementation. For compliance officers and counsel, the operative issues will be how to determine whether a proposed payment “personally benefits” the President, how DOJ must change settlement and certification practices, and how the Judgment Fund’s payment procedures interact with this ban.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill prohibits using any funds made available to the Department of Justice to approve or facilitate FTCA claims that would produce a personal payment to the President. It names both settlements and any payment issued under the Judgment Fund (31 U.S.C. §1304).
Who It Affects
Directly affects DOJ components that handle FTCA claims and settlements (including the Civil Division), Treasury officers who administer the Judgment Fund, and plaintiffs or their counsel pursuing FTCA remedies that could translate into payments tied to the President. It also touches agency counsel and the Office of Management and Budget to the extent they coordinate disbursements.
Why It Matters
The bill removes a route—settlement approval and Judgment Fund disbursement—by which a public sum could be funnelled for a President’s personal benefit, raising practical compliance questions for DOJ and Treasury. It also creates potential conflicts with existing payment-authorizing statutes and with doctrines about official-immunity and FTCA coverage.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The statute is short and narrowly worded. It says that none of the funds made available to the Department of Justice, whether those funds were appropriated before, on, or after enactment, may be used to approve or facilitate any claim subject to the Federal Tort Claims Act if the claim would result in a personal payment to the President.
The language covers both negotiated settlements and ‘‘any other payment’’ under the Judgment Fund, so it is meant to reach both pre-judgment settlements and post-judgment disbursements handled through 31 U.S.C. §1304.
Operationally, the bill forces DOJ officials to evaluate not only the legal merits of FTCA claims but also whether a potential resolution would give money to an individual—the President—for personal benefit. That evaluation will implicate case intake, settlement authority, interagency coordination, and Treasury’s disbursement procedures.
The text does not create a new claims process or specify a certification form; it simply removes authorization to use DOJ-available funds for approvals or facilitation of such payments.Because the FTCA is a waiver of sovereign immunity for certain torts by federal employees, the bill dovetails with complex questions about whether the President’s actions are ‘‘within the scope of employment’’ or otherwise covered by the FTCA. If a case were to reach a judgment that the U.S. owes money and that payment would be for the President’s personal benefit, the statutory bar would constrain DOJ from taking steps that lead to a Judgment Fund payout.
That raises practical questions about whether claimants can still obtain relief through a court judgment that the Judgment Fund is statutorily obligated to pay, and whether Treasury would comply with payment requests in the face of this prohibition.Finally, the bill’s temporal phrasing—covering funds made available before, on, or after enactment—means pending settlements or unresolved claims could be affected immediately. DOJ and Treasury would need to develop procedures to identify covered cases and to document that any proposed payment would not confer personal benefit on the President.
The text leaves the definition of ‘‘personal benefit’’ unstated; that gap will drive litigation and administrative guidance if the bill becomes law.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The prohibition references chapter 171 of title 28 (the Federal Tort Claims Act) and section 1304 of title 31 (the Judgment Fund) as the statutory hooks that determine covered claims and payments.
The bill bars DOJ from using any funds made available to it 'before, on, or after' enactment to approve or facilitate an FTCA claim that would result in a personal payment to the President.
It covers both settlements and 'any other payment' via the Judgment Fund, indicating Congress intended to block negotiated settlements and post-judgment disbursements alike.
The text contains no enforcement clause, no explicit penalty for violations, and no private right of action; it operates as an appropriations restriction on DOJ’s use of funds.
By targeting DOJ approvals and facilitation, the statute implicates Treasury’s Judgment Fund disbursement role because Judgment Fund payments typically rely on agency certification and DOJ action.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Ban on using DOJ-available funds to approve or facilitate FTCA claims benefitting the President
This paragraph is the operative rule: DOJ may not use funds made available to it to approve or facilitate any claim under the FTCA if the claim would result in a personal payment to the President. Practically, that requires DOJ decisionmakers to determine whether authorizing settlement or otherwise taking steps that lead to payment would confer a 'personal benefit' to the President and to withhold approvals when it would.
Scope of covered claims — chapter 171 of title 28
The bill ties applicability to the FTCA’s statutory chapter rather than to a list of offenses, which means typical FTCA processes (administrative claim filing, exhaustion requirements, litigation in federal court) are in scope. That choice forces practical questions about whether conduct by or attributed to the President is cognizable under the FTCA and whether DOJ can lawfully process those claims short of settlement if a payment would personally benefit the President.
Includes settlements and Judgment Fund disbursements
The provision expressly names settlements and payments under 31 U.S.C. §1304, bringing both negotiated resolutions and court-ordered payments into the prohibition. Because payment from the Judgment Fund usually requires agency certification and DOJ concurrence, blocking DOJ action is an effective cross-check on Judgment Fund outlays that would otherwise produce personal payments to the President.
Applies to funds before, on, or after enactment
The bill’s temporal language makes the bar immediately applicable to any funds 'made available' to DOJ at any time relative to enactment. That creates an immediate compliance obligation for pending matters and requires administrative procedures to identify covered cases regardless of when the underlying appropriation was enacted.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice 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
- Taxpayers and budget overseers — the statute reduces the legislative risk that public funds will be used to provide private benefit to the President, aligning disbursement authority with appropriations oversight.
- DOJ career attorneys and ethics officials — the ban removes an option that could create ethical or reputational conflicts when settlement would appear to personally enrich the President, simplifying internal advice by eliminating a class of permissible payments.
- Oversight bodies and watchdog organizations — the clear statutory restriction creates a concrete benchmark for auditing payments and for assessing whether agencies complied with appropriations limits.
Who Bears the Cost
- Department of Justice — DOJ must implement screening, certification, and new settlement practices, potentially requiring staff time, litigation strategy changes, and coordination with Treasury and OMB.
- Judgment Fund administrators at Treasury — administrators will face novel certification questions and potential disputes over whether a requested disbursement would personally benefit the President, complicating routine processing.
- FTCA claimants and plaintiffs’ counsel — claimants who would have taken settlement offers that indirectly resulted in a President-associated benefit may lose a settlement route and face prolonged litigation or diminished recovery.
- Federal agencies sued under FTCA — agencies may lose the ability to settle certain suits efficiently and could face higher litigation costs or altered indemnity arrangements if settlements are barred.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is straightforward: protect the public fisc and guard against personal enrichment through government payouts versus preserve the government’s ability to resolve and pay legitimate FTCA claims efficiently. The former demands a categorical restriction; the latter demands flexible payment mechanisms and predictable obligations to satisfy judgments—there is no simple legislative fix that fully secures both outcomes without leaving open difficult definitional and enforcement questions.
The bill gives no definition of the key phrase 'personal benefit of the President,' which will be the pivot point for disputes. Does the term cover payments to the President’s private accounts only, or also payments that absolve personal liability, replace a personal obligation, or otherwise provide economic advantage?
Absent statutory definition, DOJ and Treasury may produce differing interpretations, and courts could be asked to resolve the scope.
Another tension involves statutory payment obligations. The Judgment Fund is Congress’s mechanism for satisfying final judgments and approved settlements against the United States.
This prohibition operates through an appropriations restriction on DOJ activity rather than by amending Judgment Fund law directly. That raises questions about whether the statute could prevent Treasury from paying a court-ordered judgment that, in substance, benefits the President, and whether such a confrontation would trigger separation-of-powers or appropriations-clause litigation.
Lastly, the lack of an enforcement mechanism or compliance process (no certification form, no implementing timeline, no penalty structure) means practical implementation will rely on agency guidance, interagency coordination, and possibly judicial interpretation—each a source of delay and unpredictability.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.