Bill shields political defendants from federal prosecution by making speech a near-automatic defense
H.R. 7060 — No Political Enemies Act · Filed by Jason Crow (D-CO) · 11 cosponsors · Introduced Jan 14, 2026 · Referred to committee
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This bill prohibits federal officials from investigating, prosecuting, or taking enforcement action against individuals or organizations primarily because of their political speech or participation. It creates new civil remedies allowing people to sue federal officials for damages and seek injunctions, shifts the burden to the government to prove by clear and convincing evidence that enforcement was not politically motivated, and requires quarterly reporting to Congress on sensitive prosecutions.
Why we flagged it
The bill's core mechanism is to shield individuals from federal enforcement by creating a low-threshold affirmative defense based on political speech. While framed as protecting First Amendment rights, the operative effect is to restrict the government's ability to prosecute or investigate anyone who can claim their speech was a motivating factor in enforcement, regardless of whether legitimate grounds exist.
What the text implies
- The 'substantially motivated' standard requires only that protected speech be 'a motivating factor,' not the primary or sole reason, creating a very low threshold for defendants to claim political targeting and forcing the government to prove a negative (that speech was not a factor) by clear and convincing evidence.
- Section 5(b)(2) shifts the entire burden of proof to the government, requiring it to prove by clear and convincing evidence (higher than normal civil standard) that legitimate grounds unrelated to speech justify enforcement—a reversal of normal prosecutorial burden that may chill legitimate investigations into politically active groups.
- Section 6 allows civil suits against federal officials and agencies for 'imminent' Government action, potentially allowing preliminary injunctions that halt investigations before they conclude, creating a tool to obstruct ongoing law enforcement.
- Section 7 abrogates qualified immunity for federal officials except in narrow circumstances, exposing individual prosecutors and investigators to personal liability and damages, which may deter enforcement against politically organized defendants.
- The bill exempts enforcement under voting rights, election, and civil rights statutes from the 'political motivation' defense (Section 3(7)(B)), but only those specific laws—leaving all other federal criminal and civil enforcement vulnerable to the defense, including tax, environmental, securities, and public corruption cases.
Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.
Who it affects
The bill protects citizens against politically motivated prosecution, a genuine civic benefit. However, the extremely low bar for claiming political motivation (speech need only be 'a motivating factor,' not primary) and the burden-shift to government may shield serious criminal conduct from prosecution if the defendant can point to any prior criticism of government, creating a de facto immunity for politically active defendants and potentially obstructing legitimate law enforcement.
Named in the bill
Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, United States Attorneys, Federal courts, Committee on the Judiciary (Senate and House), Attorney General
Where it stands
11 cosponsors: 11 Democrats.
- Jan 14, 2026 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
- Jan 14, 2026 — Referred to House Committee on Ways and Means and House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform · Congress.gov: “Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Oversight and Government…”
Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.
Money around this bill
3 lobbying clients named this bill on 3 disclosure filings across 1 quarter, Jun 2026 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $40,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 16 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.
More lobbying clients named this bill than 61% of bills with at least one filing.
Jason Crow, the sponsor, reported $227,840 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.
- Campaign Legal Center, Inc. — $20,000 on 1 filing
- A New Policy Inc. — $10,000 on 1 filing
- Grantmakers in the Arts — $10,000 on 1 filing
Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.
How this was measured
Analysis — Quorum's AI read the bill text published by Congress.gov (15,373 characters) on Sep 28, 2026. Section numbers in the findings refer to that text, linked below; transparency and hidden-provision scores are compared against the median of 16,222 analysed bills.
Status and sponsors — Congress.gov's bill record — actions, committee referrals and cosponsors — loaded nightly. The timeline shows status changes, not every procedural action.
Money — Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act filings whose specific-issue field names this bill for quarters ending Jun 2026 to Jun 2026. A filing's amount is reported whole beside the median number of bills a filing names; it is never divided across them. PAC receipts are FEC-reported contributions to the sponsor's candidate committee in the 2026 cycle.
As of — lobbying records through Jul 20, 2026 · page rendered 2026-10-20.
“Bill shields political defendants from federal prosecution by making speech a near-automatic defense” QuorumCivic. https://share.quorumcivic.app/bill/119/hr7060 Report an error
The week in bills
One email, Sunday: what Congress passed, what it changed, and who paid.
One link arrives to confirm the address. It is used for this email and nothing else, and every issue carries an unsubscribe link.