S-4705-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Jacky Rosen (D-NV)
What it does
The bill would bar any federal agency from using federal funds, including the Judgment Fund, for any legal financial settlement to the President or for the President's personal or political benefit. It would also bar using federal funds to set up or keep any commission, fund, or mechanism that provides that compensation, and names the "Anti-Weaponization Fund" announced May 18, 2026. Separately, it would appropriate $1,776,000,000 from the Treasury to the Secretary of Agriculture for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
Who benefits
SNAP recipients and the households that rely on grocery assistance, who could see more program funding. Grocers and retailers that accept SNAP benefits may see added sales. Taxpayers and congressional appropriators who want limits on Judgment Fund payments tied to the President. Government-spending oversight advocates who favor firmer limits on settlement payments to officials.
Who is hurt
The President, who would be barred from receiving federal settlement payments or related compensation through the named fund or similar mechanisms. The Justice Department, which would lose a settlement tool it has announced. Individuals who might have received payments through such a fund, if it operates as announced. Federal taxpayers, who would bear the $1.776 billion in new spending, since the bill names no offset and adds to the deficit.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the Judgment Fund and similar mechanisms should not pay settlements to the President or serve his personal or political interests, and that a clear statutory bar protects taxpayer money. They contend that redirecting a sum symbolically tied to $1.776 billion to SNAP would directly address grocery costs for low-income households, and that Congress holds the power of the purse to set both limits.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill singles out one officeholder and restricts the executive's ability to settle legal claims, which the Justice Department has long handled under existing statutory authority. They contend the $1.776 billion appropriation has no offset, adds to the deficit, and pairs an unrelated spending item with a funding restriction, and they question whether a one-time sum would meaningfully lower grocery prices.
Constitutional context
Congress's power of the purse (Art. I, §9, cl. 7: no money drawn from the Treasury except by appropriations made by law) supports both the spending restriction and the new appropriation. Targeting one named person raises possible bill of attainder questions under Art. I, §9, cl. 3, though United States v. Brown (1965) and Nixon v. Administrator of General Services (1977) suggest a funding limit on a specific officeholder is not necessarily punishment. Separation of powers questions over executive settlement authority could also arise.
Checks and balances
Congress would gain power over executive settlement spending by restricting the Judgment Fund and the Justice Department's use of it, while the executive could challenge the restriction or exercise veto power, and courts could review any claim that the provision is an unconstitutional attainder or intrudes on executive authority.
Historical precedent
Congress has previously limited particular uses of federal funds through appropriations riders, but no clearly analogous statute barred settlement payments to a sitting President.