- Potential benefitCreates statutory ethics rules for executive appointees, making commitments legally enforceable.
- Potential benefitMay reduce conflicts of interest and regulatory capture by restricting financial entanglements and lobbying.
- Federal agenciesCould increase public confidence in federal decisionmaking and perceived executive branch integrity.
Drain the Swamp Act
Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
This bill, titled the Drain the Swamp Act, would give Executive Order 13989 (relating to ethics commitments by executive branch personnel) the force and effect of law. In practice it codifies into statute the ethics commitments currently set by that Executive Order.
Liberal emphasizes stronger anti-corruption and enforceability.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill succinctly states the core legal action (making Executive Order 13989 have the force of law) but contains minimal supporting statutory detail.
This bill, titled the Drain the Swamp Act, would give Executive Order 13989 (relating to ethics commitments by executive branch personnel) the force and effect of law.
In practice it codifies into statute the ethics commitments currently set by that Executive Order.
Low substantive cost and narrow scope improve prospects, but partisan framing and lack of compromise features reduce viability.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill succinctly states the core legal action (making Executive Order 13989 have the force of law) but contains minimal supporting statutory detail.
Liberal emphasizes stronger anti-corruption and enforceability.
Who stands to gain, and who may push back.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
- Potential burdenMay deter qualified private-sector candidates from accepting political appointments due to compensation restrictions.
- Potential burdenCould prompt constitutional legal challenges related to separation of powers or appointment authority.
- Federal agenciesImplementation will likely increase agency compliance costs and require additional ethics oversight resources.
Why the argument around this bill splits.
Liberal emphasizes stronger anti-corruption and enforceability.
Likely broadly supportive because codifying an ethics EO into law increases enforceability and reduces revolving-door influence.
May still press for stronger, broader restrictions or clearer enforcement mechanisms.
Generally favorable but cautious; supports anti-corruption aims while wanting clear legal language, enforceability, and respect for constitutional limits.
Seeks cost estimates and bipartisan clarity on scope.
Skeptical: supports anti-corruption goals in principle but worries codification could be overbroad, politicized, or impede qualified appointments.
Concerned about constitutional and practical effects.
The path through Congress.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Low substantive cost and narrow scope improve prospects, but partisan framing and lack of compromise features reduce viability.
- Exact substantive obligations inside Executive Order 13989
- Official cost estimate or agency implementation analysis
Recent votes on the bill.
No vote history yet
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Go deeper than the headline read.
Liberal emphasizes stronger anti-corruption and enforceability.
Low substantive cost and narrow scope improve prospects, but partisan framing and lack of compromise features reduce viability.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill succinctly states the core legal action (making Executive Order 13989 have the force of law) but contains minimal supporting statutory detail.
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.