No Gratuities for Officials Act

Summary#

The No Gratuities for Governing Act of 2026 would amend section 666 of title 18 of the United States Code and related civil and criminal forfeiture laws. It would add a federal crime for certain payments or gifts connected to an agent’s official act, and raise the maximum prison term for an existing section 666 offense from 10 to 15 years. Its stated goal is to clarify the illegal-gratuities offense. The bill is not law; it has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

  • A person who knowingly and purposefully gives, offers, or promises something worth $1,000 or more to an agent because of an official act could face a fine, up to two years in prison, or both.
  • An agent who knowingly and purposefully demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive something worth $1,000 or more personally for or because of an official act could face the same penalty.
  • The relevant business, transaction, or series of transactions must involve something worth $5,000 or more, and the bill’s federal-funds condition in section 666(c) must also be met.
  • The new offense would cover agents of organizations, state, local, and tribal governments, and their agencies. Offenses under it would also be added to laws that allow civil or criminal forfeiture.
  • The bill would raise the maximum prison term for the existing offense in section 666(a) from 10 to 15 years.

What it means for you#

  • People offering gifts or payments, and agents receiving them: The bill would make the specified conduct a federal crime when the dollar thresholds and federal-funds condition are met. It does not require that the gift be paid before the official act; it covers a gift “for or because of” an act already performed.
  • Agents of organizations and state, local, or tribal governments: The new offense would apply to agents in those groups, subject to the bill’s conditions. The bill does not set out an application or review process.
  • People and organizations generally: The bill does not directly change taxes, benefits, or public services.

Money#

No publicly available information on the bill’s cost is included in the supplied material.

  • The bill does not state an appropriation or estimate costs for investigations, prosecutions, or forfeiture cases.
  • It would allow qualifying offenses to be handled under existing civil and criminal forfeiture laws; forfeiture would not necessarily happen automatically.

What is unclear#

  • The bill relies on a condition in section 666(c), but the text of that section is not supplied. I cannot verify what federal-funds condition must be met or how it works under current law.
  • The current text of section 666 and the related forfeiture laws was not supplied, so their full existing rules and how the amendments interact with them could not be checked.
  • The bill does not explain how terms such as “agent” or “official act” apply in particular situations.
  • It does not give an effective date or explain how the new offense would interact with other laws covering similar conduct.
  • No publicly available information is supplied on expected enforcement costs or how often the new offense might be used.

Case for#

  • A possible argument for the bill is that it clearly sets monetary thresholds and makes both giving and receiving certain purposeful gratuities a federal crime.
  • The offense covers gifts connected to an official act even when the text does not describe an agreement made in advance. This could address conduct that may be harder to reach under laws focused on an exchange arranged beforehand.
  • Adding the offense to forfeiture laws may give authorities another way to pursue property under those laws when the offense is proved.

Case against#

  • One concern is that “for or because of” an official act may cover gifts connected to an act without requiring proof of an agreed exchange. The bill does not explain how that phrase would be applied.
  • The offense reaches agents of organizations and state, local, and tribal governments, but the supplied text does not explain how its federal-funds condition limits that reach.
  • The bill raises the maximum prison term for the existing offense and adds forfeiture consequences, but the supplied material gives no estimate of enforcement costs or how often these powers might be used.