Anti-Corruption Bureau Creation Act

A Federal Government free from corruption is essential to maintaining public trust.

Political corruption is fundamentally at odds with the commitment to democratic self-government outlined in the Constitution of the United States. The purpose of the Constitution is to create a Government in which all powers derive, in the words of James Madison, “from the great body of the people.” The Federalist No. 39 (James Madison). Corruption frustrates this purpose by privileging the monetary interests of a private elite over the democratically expressed will of the people.

The Framers of the Constitution of the United States recognized that corruption poses an existential threat to self-government. George Mason, an influential participant in the Constitutional Convention, told his fellow delegates that, “if we do not provide against corruption, our government will soon be at an end.” Notes of Robert Yates (June 23, 1787), in 1 The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 391, 392 (Max Farrand ed., rev. ed. 1966) (1937). Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 68, explained that, in the writing of the Constitution, “nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption.”.

To protect the democracy principle of the Constitution of the United States from this threat, the founding charter of the United States is rife with anti-corruption measures. In the article “The Anti-Corruption Principle”, Professor Zephyr Teachout identifies 23 distinct constitutional provisions aimed at preventing corruption. 94 Cornell L. Rev. 341, 354 (2009). Most prominently, the Constitution of the United States forbids, pursuant to clause 8 of section 9 of article I, Federal officials, including the President, from receiving gifts “of any kind” from a foreign power without congressional consent and provides, pursuant to section 4 of article II, that the President should be removed from office in cases of “bribery”.

In defiance of these provisions, the Trump administration has been marked by widespread corruption, disregard for basic ethical standards, and repeated efforts to weaken or take control of independent watchdog agencies to protect the President, the allies of the President, and the financial interests of the President from accountability.

President Trump and the family and close supporters of President Trump have leveraged the Government for personal profit at the expense of the people of the United States.

When public officials use governmental power to enrich themselves, their families, and major donors—through self-dealing, conflicts of interest, and preferential treatment—those public officials violate their oath to the Constitution of the United States, defy the democratically expressed will of the people, distort markets, increase costs and financial risks for families in the United States, undermine fair competition for honest businesses, and erode public confidence in democratic institutions.

Systemic corruption and pay-to-play practices in the executive branch function as a hidden tax on families in the United States by driving up the prices those families pay for essentials while channeling public resources and policy favors toward special interests rather than the broader public interest.

The Constitution of the United States empowers Congress, as the branch of Government with the most direct relationship to the people, to enact laws providing for strong anti-corruption enforcement and truly independent investigative mechanisms, as these measures are essential to defending democracy and protecting the economic well-being of families in the United States.

After the Watergate scandal, Congress exercised these powers to create a system of independent watchdog agencies, including the Federal Election Commission, the Office of Government Ethics, and the Office of Special Counsel, to prevent abuses of power, oversee money in politics, and restore trust in Federal institutions. Today, these agencies are failing to fulfill the missions of those agencies because the agencies have been systematically weakened, particularly during the Trump administration.

Fifty years after Watergate, the Federal Election Commission—the leading reform agency created during that era—has been deliberately weakened, stalled by gridlock, and influenced by the very interests the Commission is meant to regulate. This includes the appointment of commissioners opposed to the mission of the Commission, the removal of the Chair of the Commission, and efforts to prevent the Commission from maintaining a quorum.

As a result, there is little meaningful enforcement of Federal campaign finance laws, allowing Trump, affiliated political committees, and others to violate or push the limits of the law without consequence.

The Ethics in Government Act of 1978, now codified as chapter 131 of title 5, United States Code, established the Office of Government Ethics to prevent conflicts of interest and uphold public trust. The Trump administration, however, weakened this office by removing a Senate-confirmed Director mid-term, attacking inspectors general, and signaling that ethics officials risk retaliation for doing their jobs.

These actions are part of a broader strategy to treat ethics rules as optional, reduce financial disclosure to a formality, and allow the President, the inner circle of the President, and family members of the President to benefit from public office without meaningful oversight.

The Office of Special Counsel, which is responsible for protecting the merit-based civil service, enforcing the Hatch Act (codified as subchapter III of chapter 73 of title 5, United States Code) and safeguarding whistleblowers, has also been destabilized. This includes the removal of a Senate-confirmed Special Counsel and the installation of interim leadership that pursued politically driven investigations, discouraging the reporting of wrongdoing.

Across these agencies, a consistent pattern has emerged: identify the watchdog, target the leadership of the watchdog, shape appointments for political ends, and erode the independence of the watchdog until the watchdog can no longer effectively detect, prevent, or punish misconduct.

These actions have accelerated the decline in public confidence in ethical Government and accountability and have put the foundation of democratic governance at risk.

The Supreme Court of the United States has held that Congress retains the power to create independent agencies, but that these agencies must be both independent in fact and appearance (see Trump v. Cook, No. 25A312, slip op. at 14 (U.S. June 29, 2026)), with functions that are “essentially of an investigative and informative nature” (Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 137 (1976)), consistent with the holdings of the Supreme Court regarding Congress establishing new independent agencies (see Trump v. Slaughter, No. 25–332, slip op. at 27 (U.S. June 29, 2026) (citing Buckley, 424 U.S. 1, 137–138)).

Congress therefore finds it necessary to rebuild and strengthen these institutions ensuring the institutions are truly independent, in fact and appearance, protected from similar abuses in the future, capable of enforcing the law in practice and providing essential transparency into the Government of the United States, and not easily undermined by any single President or political party.

To restore and strengthen the ability of the Federal Government to prevent, detect, and address corruption, conflicts of interest, abuses of power, and serious violations of campaign finance, ethics, and civil service laws.

To facilitate recovering for the people of the United States the money that has been pilfered through corruption.

To rebuild and update the post-Watergate oversight system so that Federal anti-corruption laws are enforced as Congress intended, and that no administration—including the Trump administration—can turn public service into personal gain and easily weaken or take control of that system.

To rebuild public trust in the Federal Government by making clear that no one, regardless of position, is above the law—and that the institutions responsible for enforcing the law are strong enough to do so, even in the face of determined efforts, such as those by Trump, to undermine them.

To close gaps in the law that have emerged over the past 5 decades and update the post-Watergate framework to address modern challenges, ensuring that future Presidents and administrations cannot repeat the pattern seen during the Trump administration of weakening or taking control of independent oversight agencies.

To create an independent establishment that is both independent in fact and appearance, with functions that are essentially of an investigative and informative nature, consistent with the holdings of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding Congress establishing new independent agencies.