PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 18.
Congressional Research Service
Version 07 · Reported to House · Mar 21, 2025
Promptly Ending Political Prosecutions and Executive Retaliation Act of 2025
This bill expands the types of federal officials who may remove (i.e., transfer) state cases brought against them to federal court. It also establishes a presumption of immunity for federal officials in these cases.
The federal officer removal statute authorizes certain defendants (e.g., federal officers) to remove to federal court a civil action or criminal prosecution brought against them in state court if the claims or charges relate to official duties. Often, defendants who invoke the federal officer removal statute raise claims of official immunity.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
In recent years, the statute received public attention when then-former President Donald Trump and former officials sought to invoke the statute. For example, in Georgia v. Meadows, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows could not remove Georgia’s criminal prosecution of him to federal court based on the federal officer removal statute because it does not apply to former federal officers, and even if it did, the charges were not related to Meadows’s official duties.
This bill allows a defendant who is a former federal officer or current or former President or Vice President to remove state cases brought against them to federal court based on the federal officer removal statute. It also establishes a presumption that federal officials have immunity in cases that are removable, which may only be rebutted by a showing that their actions were not related to official duties.
People & committees
Rep. Fry, Russell [R-SC-7] · R–SC
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 18.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 119-28.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 119-28.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 14 - 11.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: May 21, 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.1789 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.1789 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.1789 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.1789 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.