CONGRESS FOR VOTERS

DemocratBill · H.Res. 1185· House(119-HRES-1185)

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Department of Justice must comply with the Domestic Emoluments Clause of the Constitution by refusing to administratively settle the billions of dollars in legal claims filed against the United States by President Donald Trump.

Rep. Raskin
Age: 64 years
Maryland
Introduced
4/16/2026
Last activity
4/16/2026 — Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by
Jamie Raskin
Cosponsors
Democrat - 32Republican - 0
Government Operations and Politics
  1. Introduced
  2. In Committee

A House resolution is the House speaking for itself: stating a position, honouring someone, or setting its own rules. Adopting it is the whole process. Once the House agrees to it, it is officially the House's word; it is not a law, so the Senate and the President have no part in it.

What this bill would do

This resolution expresses the sense of the House of Representatives regarding legal claims filed by President Donald Trump against the United States. It asserts that the Department of Justice must comply with the Domestic Emoluments Clause of the Constitution by refusing to administratively settle these claims. The text notes a lawsuit by the President seeking at least $10,000,000,000 from the Internal Revenue Service. It also mentions prior administrative claims regarding a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago and investigations into the 2016 election. The resolution argues that settling these claims would constitute a threat of corrupt self-dealing. Ultimately, it calls for federal agencies to be forbidden from conferring such monetary payments outside of the President's official salary.

Yes

  • Does this reduce what the federal government spends?+8

    The resolution seeks to prevent the administrative settlement of multi-billion dollar legal claims by the President, which would preserve federal funds.

  • Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?+5

    The resolution aims to prevent corrupt self-dealing and ensure the President does not act as a judge in his own cause regarding financial settlements.

  • Would households on low incomes be better off under this?+4

    Protecting taxpayer funds from large-scale administrative settlements benefits the general public, including low-income households.

The opposite

  • Would high-income households be better off under this?-3

    The resolution restricts the ability of the President to receive large monetary settlements through administrative channels.