H.R. 9771 (119th)Bill Overview

Stopping Foreign Influence in Elections Act of 2026

domestic policy
Cosponsors
Support
Republican
Introduced
Jul 18, 2026
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageCommittee

Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.

Introduced
Committee
Floor
President
Law
Congressional Activities
01 · The brief
Plain-English summaryWhat this bill actually does

The bill adds a new tax penalty regime to the Internal Revenue Code that targets certain 501(c) organizations that (within two years) receive any contribution from a foreign national and then make contributions to political committees or 501(c)(4) organizations. Specified tax‑exempt organizations (those filing Form 990 with either ≥$200,000 gross receipts or ≥$500,000 assets) would owe a civil penalty equal to twice the political contribution amount, and Section 501 would be amended to impose excise taxes (100% for a first offense, 200% for a second, 200% plus two‑year loss of tax exemption for later offenses).

Why people may split

Liberals emphasize chilling effects and civil society safeguards.

Watch point

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a clear and specific statutory mechanism to impose taxes and penalties on certain tax‑exempt organizations that, within a defined testing period, both receive funds from foreign nationals and make contributions to political entities; it integrates well with existing IRC and FECA references but provides limited administrative and fiscal scaffolding.

The bill adds a new tax penalty regime to the Internal Revenue Code that targets certain 501(c) organizations that (within two years) receive any contribution from a foreign national and then make contributions to political committees or 501(c)(4) organizations.

Specified tax‑exempt organizations (those filing Form 990 with either ≥$200,000 gross receipts or ≥$500,000 assets) would owe a civil penalty equal to twice the political contribution amount, and Section 501 would be amended to impose excise taxes (100% for a first offense, 200% for a second, 200% plus two‑year loss of tax exemption for later offenses).

The statute allows reliance on donor representations about nationality, excludes periods before enactment, and applies to contributions made more than one year after enactment.

Passage35/100

Targeted, administrable proposal on a salient problem but raises constitutional and stakeholder opposition and changes tax law, reducing enactment probability.

CredibilityPartially aligned

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a clear and specific statutory mechanism to impose taxes and penalties on certain tax‑exempt organizations that, within a defined testing period, both receive funds from foreign nationals and make contributions to political entities; it integrates well with existing IRC and FECA references but provides limited administrative and fiscal scaffolding.

Contention30/100

Liberals emphasize chilling effects and civil society safeguards.

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Likely benefits vs burdens50% / 50%
Likely helpedLikely burdened

These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.

Likely helped
  • Potential benefitIncreases financial deterrence against foreign-influenced political funding through large tax penalties.
  • Potential benefitEncourages nonprofits to strengthen donor vetting, recordkeeping, and compliance systems.
  • Potential benefitCreates a tax-based enforcement tool to address foreign contributions affecting elections.
Likely burdened
  • Potential burdenMay chill legitimate nonprofit fundraising due to risk of severe penalties from incidental foreign gifts.
  • Potential burdenImposes additional compliance and administrative costs on mid-sized and large tax-exempt organizations.
  • Potential burdenEscalating taxes and temporary revocation risk substantial revenue loss and program disruption for impacted groups.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Liberals emphasize chilling effects and civil society safeguards.
Progressive75%

Likely to welcome stronger rules limiting foreign influence in U.S. elections while raising concerns about chilling effects on nonprofits and civic participation.

Supportive of deterrence, but cautious about heavy penalties, administrative burdens, and potential unequal enforcement against advocacy organizations.

Leans supportive
Centrist60%

Generally supportive of reducing foreign election influence but wary about implementation complexity and unintended consequences.

Wants narrow, administrable rules with clear definitions and phased enforcement to avoid punishing good‑faith actors.

Split reaction
Conservative80%

Likely to support measures that curb foreign influence in U.S. politics, especially penalties and loss of tax exemption for repeat offenders.

However, may be concerned about expanding IRS authority and uneven targeting of politically active organizations.

Leans supportive
04 · Can it pass?

The path through Congress.

Introduced

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Committee

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Floor

Still ahead

President

Still ahead

Law

Still ahead

Passage likelihood35/100

Targeted, administrable proposal on a salient problem but raises constitutional and stakeholder opposition and changes tax law, reducing enactment probability.

Scope and complexity
52%
Scopemoderate
52%
Complexitymedium
Why this could stall
  • Potential First Amendment or due process legal challenges
  • Net fiscal impact not estimated in text
05 · Recent votes

Recent votes on the bill.

No vote history yet

The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.

06 · Go deeper

Go deeper than the headline read.

Included on this page

Liberals emphasize chilling effects and civil society safeguards.

Targeted, administrable proposal on a salient problem but raises constitutional and stakeholder opposition and changes tax law, reducing en…

Unlocked analysis

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a clear and specific statutory mechanism to impose taxes and penalties on certain tax‑exempt organizations that, within a defined testing period, both rec…

Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.

Perspective breakdownsPassage barriersLegislative design reviewStakeholder impact map
Open full analysis