PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on House Administration, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Subramanyam, Suhas [D-VA-10] · D–VA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on House Administration, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on House Administration, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 11, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10290 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10290 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10290 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10290 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-09-03 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
This bill would require the Justice Department to report to Congress after each presidential pardon, analyzing the recipient’s other criminal history and risk of reoffending or endangering communities. It would also restrict pardon recipients from making contributions over $1,000 to specified political committees or entities supporting the President’s election. The Federal Election Commission would determine violations and could refer matters for criminal prosecution.
In the case of any pardon by the President, the Pardon Attorney of the Department of Justice shall submit to Congress within 30 days after such a grant a written analysis of any criminal history of the recipient that does not pertain to any offense for which a pardon is granted, and an analysis of any risk of recidivism and danger to communities based on their background.
A person who has received a pardon from the President may not make, in the determination of the Federal Election Commission, any contribution in an amount greater than $1,000 to an authorized committee of the President, a leadership PAC of the President, or an entity that has made an independent expenditure expressly advocating the election of the President. The Federal Election Commission may refer, as appropriate, any matter for criminal prosecution to the Attorney General.
For every presidential pardon, the bill would require the Justice Department’s Pardon Attorney to submit a written analysis to Congress within 30 days after the pardon. It must address criminal history unrelated to the pardoned offenses and assess the recipient’s risk of committing further crimes and danger to communities based on their background.
In the case of any pardon by the President, the Pardon Attorney of the Department of Justice shall submit to Congress within 30 days after such a grant a written analysis of any criminal history of the recipient that does not pertain to any offense for which a pardon is granted, and an analysis of any risk of recidivism and danger to communities based on their background.
The proposed contribution restriction would apply to a person who has received a presidential pardon. It would prohibit contributions greater than $1,000, as determined by the Federal Election Commission, to the President’s authorized campaign committee, the President’s leadership political action committee, or an entity that has made an independent expenditure expressly advocating the President’s election. The text does not prohibit every political contribution by a pardon recipient.
A person who has received a pardon from the President may not make, in the determination of the Federal Election Commission, any contribution in an amount greater than $1,000 to an authorized committee of the President, a leadership PAC of the President, or an entity that has made an independent expenditure expressly advocating the election of the President.
The bill would allow, but would not require, the Federal Election Commission to refer appropriate matters to the Attorney General for criminal prosecution.
The Federal Election Commission may refer, as appropriate, any matter for criminal prosecution to the Attorney General.
The bill would use existing federal election-law definitions for “authorized committee,” “independent expenditure,” and “leadership PAC,” a type of political action committee. It incorporates those definitions by reference rather than reproducing them, so the supplied text alone does not explain their precise legal scope.
(1) The terms authorized committee and independent expenditure have the meanings given such terms in section 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30101). (2) The term leadership PAC has the meaning given such term in section 304(i)(8)(B) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30104(i)(8)(B)).
The supplied September 11, 2026 source snapshot records introduction in the House on September 3, 2026, and referral that day to the Judiciary and House Administration committees for consideration of provisions within their respective jurisdictions.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-11T16:30:08Z.
2026-09-03: Introduced in House
2026-09-03: Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on House Administration, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-09-03. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the supplied complete introduced text. This conclusion does not extend to other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the supplied complete introduced text. This conclusion does not establish the absence of earmarks in other versions or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow benefit, special exemption, or preferential treatment was identified in the supplied complete introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 11, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI