H.R. 10837House bill · 119th CongressIn committee

To prohibit individuals convicted of bribery, ethics violations, or violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act from serving in the executive branch of the Federal Government, and for other purposes.

Sponsored byEugene Simon VindmanD-VA-7Introduced Oct 15, 2026Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Oct 15, 2026) — on Oversight and Government Reform.

What it does

not written yet

The Congressional Research Service writes the plain-English summary for every bill, usually a few weeks after it's introduced. This one doesn't have one yet. It will appear here when it does.

In the meantime the most reliable description is the bill's own official title, which is the heading above — written by its sponsor, and the only account of the bill that exists at this stage. The full text is on congress.gov ↗

We don't write our own summaries. Everything else on this site links back to a record you can check, and a description of a bill that came from us rather than from the bill would be the one thing here that didn't — on the page that asks you to take a position on it.

Discussion

10 comments

Sort

stilldinerDemoOH-9voted Yea16h ago

No from me. Pushing the cost to states without saying so is still an unfunded mandate. I'd want the cost estimate before I'd defend either position.

back_cartographerDemoNC-10voted Yea2d ago

This looks like it codifies practice that already exists informally. Worth doing — informal practice evaporates when an administration changes. I'd rather see it fixed in committee than argued about on the floor.

nadia_librarianDemoNY-15voted Yea2d ago

Against, and not because the goal is wrong. It stacks a new process on top of two that already don't talk to each other. The committee report would settle it either way.

r_castellanoDemoMN-6voted Nay8h ago

Worth reading the sponsor list before deciding — it's less partisan than the framing suggests. Worth knowing who asked for this and when.

PurpleDistrictDemoSC-2voted Yea2d ago

The pilot-programme framing is the part I'd watch. Pilots have a way of becoming permanent at the next reauthorisation. The floor version may not be this version, which is the usual problem.

petra.lindqvistDemoTX-19voted Nay1d ago

The reporting requirements are the useful part. You can't argue about something nobody is required to measure. Whether that matters depends entirely on the implementation date.

hollow_porchDemoHI-1voted Nay1d ago

My hesitation is the absence of a sunset. Authorities that never expire never get re-examined either. None of that is settled by the summary.

gulfcoastgailDemoNJ-8voted Nay2d ago

No from me. Pushing the cost to states without saying so is still an unfunded mandate. Worth knowing who asked for this and when.

wxriveraDemoMN-4voted Nay1d ago

This is unglamorous plumbing, and unglamorous plumbing is usually what matters. Yes from me. None of that is settled by the summary.

BudgetHawk88DemoUT-3voted Nay2d ago

What I'd want before deciding: who administers it, out of which budget, and who they answer to when it doesn't work. The floor version may not be this version, which is the usual problem.

Your position on H.R. 10837No positions yet