Pardon Reform Bills and Amendments in Congress: Every Proposal Explained

Pardon reform bills now pending in Congress take two very different paths: constitutional amendments that would let Congress cancel pardons or bar self-pardons, and ordinary bills that leave the pardon itself alone but regulate the money, lobbying and secrecy around it. None has been enacted. The amendments need two-thirds of both houses and 38 states. The bills need 60 Senate votes and a president’s signature or a veto override.

Where it stands: The newest proposal is the No Payoffs for Pardons Act, introduced Aug. 3, 2026, by Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (S. 5212) and Rep. Joe Morelle (H.R. 10032). No floor vote on any of the measures below appears in the records we checked. The White House says Trump’s clemency process is properly vetted and calls the pardon power “absolute.”

Why can’t Congress just pass a law limiting pardons?

Because the Supreme Court has said Congress cannot shrink the pardon power itself. The Constitution gives the president “Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” In Ex parte Garland (1866), the Court wrote that “Congress can neither limit the effect of his pardon, nor exclude from its exercise any class of offenders.”

That is why reformers split their efforts. A rule about who may be pardoned, or whether Congress can cancel a pardon, needs an amendment. A rule about what happens around a pardon, such as paying for one, may not. The Congressional Research Service has written that offering a pardon to shape testimony “would precede the act of pardoning and thus be within Congress’s power to regulate even if the pardon itself is not.” How far that reasoning reaches has not been tested in court.

Which pardon reform bills and amendments are pending?

These are the main proposals we found in the 119th Congress, with their status as of Oct. 26, 2026.

What would the pardon-veto amendment, H.J.Res. 135, do?

It would give Congress a veto over individual pardons. The resolution text requires the president to notify congressional leaders of any pardon “within 3 days.” Then “Congress may, within 30 days, introduce a Bill to nullify the Reprieve or Pardon,” and may pass it “within 60 days” by “two-thirds vote of both Houses.”

Pardons would not take effect right away. Absent a nullification, a pardon would become effective “90 days after” the president’s notice. A pardon not reported in time would have “no force or effect.”

It is the only measure on this list with a Republican lead cosponsor. Rep. Johnny Olszewski filed it on Dec. 18, 2025, with Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska.

What would the Cohen and Morelle amendments change?

Both target self-pardons. Cohen, who says he “first introduced a version of this amendment during the 115th Congress, in 2017,” describes H.J.Res. 13 this way: it “would explicitly prohibit a self-pardon, pardons of family members, administration officials, and campaign employees.” It also says that “no pardon issued for a corrupt purpose – past, present, or future – is valid.”

Morelle’s H.J.Res. 108 goes after the 2024 Supreme Court immunity ruling as well. Its title proposes that “there is no immunity from criminal prosecution” for acts within an official’s constitutional authority, “and providing that the President may not grant a pardon to himself or herself.”

No president has issued a self-pardon, and no court has ruled on one. A 1974 Office of Legal Counsel memo concluded that “the President cannot pardon himself,” reasoning that “no one may be a judge in his own case.” The Congressional Research Service calls the question “unclear.”

What would the No Payoffs for Pardons Act do?

It would leave pardons standing but make buying one riskier. According to the Senate text and a Campaign Legal Center summary, it would:

• require pardon recipients to disclose “anything of value above $10,000” given to the president, the president’s family, entities they control or advance, businesses they hold a stake in, or anyone paid to seek the pardon;
• set a civil penalty “of not more than $50,000 per violation” for knowing violations, and up to five years in prison for willful ones;
• amend the federal bribery statute so that a pardon counts as an official act and a thing of value, and reach candidates who promise future pardons;
• give prosecutors 10 years, rather than the usual five, to bring pardon-bribery cases.

The longer clock is aimed at timing. The Campaign Legal Center says it would let “a future administration” prosecute “even if the president who issued a pardon obstructs the Department of Justice during their term of office.” The bill’s findings argue that presidential immunity “only attaches to the President and does not extend to private individuals who corruptly offer things of value to obtain clemency.” Those are the sponsors’ and advocates’ claims; a court has not tested them.

What about transparency and the Protecting Our Democracy Act?

H.R. 9860, from Reps. Dave Min and Suhas Subramanyam, is the House companion to Blumenthal’s S. 256, Min’s office says. It would require the president to publish “a written explanation of the reasons” for each grant in the Federal Register. The Pardon Attorney would prepare a Justice Impact Statement on how the grant affects ongoing cases, and victims would be told and invited to comment. Pardon lobbyists would have to register “not later than 2 days after” a first contact. “Presidential pardons should not be for sale,” Subramanyam said.

Title XI of Raskin’s H.R. 8831 is broader. In cases where the president, relatives, appointees or campaign staff were targets or subjects of an investigation, it would require the attorney general to send the case files to the Judiciary committees “not later than 30 days after” a pardon. It would declare that a self-pardon “is void and of no effect.” And it would treat “any pardon, commutation, or reprieve, or an offer of any such pardon” as a thing of value under the witness-bribery law. A statute declaring a self-pardon void would itself face the Garland line quoted above. Our H.R. 8831 explainer covers its other titles, and bribery for a pardon covers the underlying legal fight.

What does the White House say, and what are the odds?

The administration rejects the premise. When Min and Sen. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) sent letters in June seeking clemency records, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson called them “nothing more than a sad messaging attempt, coordinated between Democrats and their media allies,” Reuters reported. Reuters added that “the White House and Justice Department have both denied any impropriety” with Trump’s clemency actions, and that the administration says the process “involves thorough and coordinated vetting by appropriate officials.”

On the math, an amendment under Article V needs “two thirds of both Houses” and ratification “by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States,” which is 38 of 50. Ordinary bills can be vetoed, and a veto override takes two-thirds of each chamber. Track individual grants on the Trump pardon tracker.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can Congress limit the president’s pardon power by law?

Not directly. Ex parte Garland, an 1866 Supreme Court decision, bars Congress from narrowing a pardon or carving out categories of offenders. Bills therefore target conduct around pardons, such as bribery, disclosure and lobbying, while changes to who can be pardoned would need a constitutional amendment.

Who introduced the No Payoffs for Pardons Act?

It is a bill introduced Aug. 3, 2026, by Sen. Chuck Schumer (S. 5212) and Rep. Joe Morelle (H.R. 10032). It would require pardon recipients to disclose things of value over $10,000 tied to the president, apply bribery law to pardons and set a 10-year limit for pardon-bribery prosecutions.

Is there a constitutional amendment to let Congress overturn pardons?

Yes. H.J.Res. 135, from Reps. Johnny Olszewski and Don Bacon, would let Congress nullify a pardon by a two-thirds vote of both chambers within set deadlines. It has not advanced.

Have any pardon reform bills passed?

No. As of Oct. 26, 2026, none of the pardon reform bills or amendments described here had become law, and none had reached a floor vote in the records we checked.

What does the White House say about pardon reform efforts?

A White House spokesperson called Democrats’ June 2026 pardon letters a sad messaging attempt. The White House and Justice Department deny any impropriety and describe the pardon power as absolute.

Sources

• H.J.Res. 135 (Introduced in House) — Congress.gov / U.S. Government Publishing Office, December 18, 2025
• Congressman Cohen Reintroduces an Amendment to the Constitution to Clarify and Limit the Presidential Pardon Power — Office of Rep. Steve Cohen, January 9, 2025
• H.J.Res. 108 (Introduced in House) — U.S. Government Publishing Office, July 22, 2025
• S. 5212, No Payoffs for Pardons Act (Introduced in Senate) — Congress.gov / U.S. Government Publishing Office, August 3, 2026
• H.R. 10032, No Payoffs for Pardons Act (Introduced in House) — Congress.gov / U.S. Government Publishing Office, August 3, 2026
• Congress Must Pass the No Payoffs for Pardons Act (fact sheet) — Campaign Legal Center, August 2026
• H.R. 9860, Pardon Transparency and Accountability Act of 2026 (Introduced in House) — Congress.gov / U.S. Government Publishing Office, July 22, 2026
• Representatives Dave Min and Suhas Subramanyam Introduce Pardon Transparency and Accountability Act of 2026 — Office of Rep. Dave Min, July 22, 2026
• H.R. 8831, Protecting Our Democracy Act (Introduced in House) — U.S. Government Publishing Office, May 14, 2026
• The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription — National Archives, text of 1787
• Presidential or Legislative Pardon of the President — U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, August 5, 1974
• Democrats plan investigations, affordability efforts if they reclaim Congress — Christian Science Monitor, October 15, 2026
• Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. 333 (1866) — Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, 1866 Term
• Presidential Pardons: Overview and Selected Legal Issues (R46179) — Congressional Research Service, via EveryCRSReport, January 14, 2020
• Democrats press Trump administration over pay-to-play pardons — Reuters, via The Spokesman-Review, June 15, 2026

This article is news reporting and analysis based on the public sources listed above, as they stood on the dates shown. Where officials, lawmakers or analysts disagree, including on whether an action is lawful, their positions are attributed to them; Donald Trump Class Action is not a court and nothing here is legal advice. Facts in a developing story can change.