Federal agencies banned from hiring businesses that refuse law enforcement
H.R. 7551 — HILTON Act · Filed by Cory Mills (R-FL) · Introduced Feb 12, 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 agencies from contracting with businesses that have refused service to federal law enforcement officers because of their official duties, or that have policies permitting such refusals. It covers lodging, transportation, food, healthcare, vehicle rental, property rental, and storage services. Agencies can waive the ban if no alternative provider exists within 50 miles or if a parent company takes remedial action against a subsidiary that refused service.
Why we flagged it
The bill's operative mechanism is a federal contracting restriction tied to a specific class of workers (law enforcement). It is not a general anti-discrimination statute but a targeted mandate ensuring federal agencies can contract only with entities that serve law enforcement without refusal based on official duty.
What the text implies
- The bill may conflict with state and local public accommodations laws that permit refusals on conscience or safety grounds, creating a federal override of state policy in contracting.
- The 50-mile waiver radius may be impractical in rural areas, potentially forcing agencies to contract with entities they would otherwise avoid or to forgo services entirely.
- The 'controlled group' language (IRC §52) treats parent and subsidiary companies as one entity, potentially punishing large corporations for subsidiary conduct they may not directly control.
- The bill does not define 'stated that such refusal was due to an official duty'—ambiguity about what counts as a stated reason may lead to disputes over whether a refusal qualifies.
Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.
Who it affects
The bill protects federal law enforcement officers' access to essential services (a narrow public benefit), but it also restricts private businesses' ability to set their own service policies based on conscience or safety concerns—a cost to business autonomy and potentially to citizens who share those concerns. The public interest in either outcome is unclear and contested.
Who stands to gain
- federal law enforcement agencies (reduced contracting restrictions)
- hospitality and service providers willing to serve law enforcement without refusal
Named in the bill
Federal agencies, Federal law enforcement officers, Hospitality and service providers (lodging, transportation, food, healthcare, vehicle rental, proper, Internal Revenue Code Section 52 (controlled group definition)
Where it stands
- Feb 12, 2026 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
- Feb 12, 2026 — Referred to House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform”
Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.
How this was measured
Analysis — Quorum's AI read the bill text published by Congress.gov (1,848 characters) on Nov 2, 2026. Section numbers in the findings refer to that text, linked below; transparency and hidden-provision scores are compared against the median of 16,927 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.
As of — page rendered 2026-11-02.
“Federal agencies banned from hiring businesses that refuse law enforcement” QuorumCivic. https://share.quorumcivic.app/bill/119/hr7551 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.