The Protecting Our Democracy Act, filed in the House as H.R. 8831, is Democrats’ main bill to rewrite the rules that a president and his appointees operate under: it would void self-pardons, stop the federal criminal clock while a president is in office, put the emoluments bans into statute and give Congress a faster way to enforce subpoenas. Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat, filed it on May 14, 2026, joined by Reps. Robert Garcia and Joseph Morelle. Neither it nor Sen. Adam Schiff’s Senate version, S. 2838, has been enacted, and we found no record of a floor vote on either.
Where it stands: The bill was referred to nine House committees, led by Oversight. Raskin’s office said it had 98 cosponsors at introduction. Under a Republican House it has not moved. If Democrats win the House on Nov. 3, Raskin and Garcia are in line to chair two of those committees, Judiciary and Oversight.
What is the Protecting Our Democracy Act?
It is an omnibus: one bill made up of many smaller acts, each with its own title and short name. Raskin’s office said the goal is “to reassert the rule of law, revive congressional power and get our democracy back on the growth track.” Garcia’s line in the same announcement was narrower: “No one should be able to buy a pardon, a cabinet seat, or favor from the President of the United States, and this bill will make sure it can’t happen.”
The idea predates Trump’s second term. Public Citizen, which backs the bill, noted in Raskin’s release that versions have “been put forth during both Republican and Democratic administrations alike.” Schiff, who says he has “led this legislation as both a member of the U.S. House of Representatives and now in the Senate,” introduced the Senate bill, S. 2838, in September 2025 with eight cosponsors. CREW, another backer, argued it “isn’t only about the abuses of Donald Trump.”
The table lists the titles most relevant to accountability. All quotations and descriptions come from the introduced text on govinfo.gov.
| Title | Short name | What it would do |
|---|---|---|
| XI | Abuse of the Pardon Power Prevention Act | Case files to Congress after certain pardons; bribery law reaches pardons; self-pardon void |
| XII | No President is Above the Law Act | Pauses limitation periods while a president or vice president serves; benefits forfeited on felony conviction |
| XIII | Emoluments enforcement | Statutory ban on foreign-government payments; Congress may sue; payments from pardon recipients barred |
| XIV | Investigative Integrity Protection Act | Sworn statement from the attorney general before a court drops a case against a president |
| XXI | Congressional Subpoena Compliance and Enforcement Act | Express right to sue subpoena recipients, with expedited courts |
| XXII | Power of the purse | Tighter Impoundment Control Act rules and GAO lawsuit authority |
| XXIII | Security from Political Interference in Justice | Logs of White House contacts with DOJ on cases |
| XXV | Accountability for Acting Officials | Stricter Vacancies Act rules on who can serve as acting |
What does the bill say about pardons?
Title XI contains three changes. First, when a president pardons someone in a case where the president, a relative, an appointee or a campaign employee was a target or subject, or where the offense was contempt of Congress, the bill says that “not later than 30 days” afterward the attorney general must hand the prosecution and investigative files to the chair and ranking member of the Judiciary committees.
Second, it amends the federal bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. §201, to name “the President and the Vice President of the United States” as covered officials, and to count a pardon or an offer of one as a thing of value in the witness-bribery provision.
Third, Section 1104 states: “The President’s grant of a pardon to himself or herself is void and of no effect, and shall not deprive the courts of jurisdiction, or operate to confer on the President any legal immunity from investigation or prosecution.”
That last provision collides with an open constitutional question. In 1866, in Ex parte Garland, the justices wrote that “Congress can neither limit the effect of his pardon, nor exclude from its exercise any class of offenders.” And no court has ruled on self-pardons at all; as the Congressional Research Service puts it, “no past President has ever issued such a pardon,” so “no federal court has addressed the matter.” The bill would set Congress’s position by law, but courts would decide whether it holds. For the competing amendments and stand-alone bills, see our rundown of pardon reform proposals.
How would it change the statute of limitations for presidents?
Title XII would pause the federal clock for whoever holds the presidency or vice presidency. Federal prosecutors normally get five years from the offense to indict, under what is called a statute of limitations. The bill adds to 18 U.S.C. §3282 that “the duration of that person’s tenure in such office shall not be considered” for any federal offense that person committed, including offenses committed before taking office.
The reason traces to the Justice Department’s own policy against indicting a sitting president. In 2000, the Office of Legal Counsel acknowledged that the policy carries “certain drawbacks,” such as the statute of limitations running out and causing “a complete hiatus in criminal liability.” It added that the limitations period “is ultimately within the control of Congress.”
The bill would apply to past conduct only “if the period of limitations applicable to that offense had not run as of such date.” It would not revive expired cases. Whether even that partial retroactivity would survive a constitutional challenge is a question our sources do not resolve. Title XII also adds a section titled “Forfeiture of benefits for former presidents convicted of a felony.” The general five-year rule and its exceptions are laid out in our limitations explainer.
What would it do on emoluments, subpoenas and DOJ independence?
On emoluments, the Constitution already bars officials from taking foreign-government presents without Congress’s consent, but the main lawsuits against Trump ended in 2021 when the Supreme Court told lower courts to dismiss them as moot, leaving no ruling on the merits. Title XIII would make it “unlawful” to accept from a foreign government “any present, emolument, payment, office, or title” without that consent, and states that “the Senate or the House of Representatives may bring a civil action” over violations. It would also bar anyone granted clemency from paying the president, including through a “Presidentially-owned entity,” while that president is in office.
📨 Get Free Accountability Coverage Alerts
Free · No spam · Unsubscribe anytime
On subpoenas, Title XXI says either chamber or a committee “may bring a civil action against the recipient of a subpoena,” and orders courts to expedite such cases. That responds to the long delays in past subpoena fights, which our contempt-of-Congress explainer describes.
On the Justice Department, Title XIV would require that when the government seeks to dismiss a prosecution of a president or president-elect, “the court shall require the Attorney General to submit a sworn statement under penalty of perjury” on whether the president ordered it. Title XXIII would require that “the Attorney General shall maintain a log of covered communications” between DOJ and the White House. Title XXV would tighten the Vacancies Act so that a first assistant could become acting only after holding that post at least 30 days in the year before the vacancy.
What would it take to pass, and what do Republicans say?
It would need a majority in both chambers, 60 votes to break a Senate filibuster, and either the president’s signature or a two-thirds override. The Christian Science Monitor put it plainly: even with both chambers, Democrats would face “a 60-vote threshold in the Senate for most legislation. And Mr. Trump can veto laws, which would force Congress to muster a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate.”
We found no published Republican or White House statement responding to H.R. 8831 itself. The White House has rejected the premise behind its emoluments provisions in related disputes. When Senate Democrats sought hearings on Trump’s crypto holdings in July 2026, spokesperson Anna Kelly called it “the same, tired narrative that Democrats have pushed against President Trump, his family, and his administration for a decade,” adding: “There are no conflicts of interest”.
H.R. 8831 is a statement of what a Democratic majority says it wants to enact, not a law. Like every bill in this Congress, it expires in January 2027 unless passed, and would have to be reintroduced in the 120th Congress. How it fits each election outcome is mapped in our scenario hub.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is H.R. 8831?
H.R. 8831 is the Protecting Our Democracy Act, introduced in the House on May 14, 2026, by Rep. Jamie Raskin with Reps. Robert Garcia and Joseph Morelle. It bundles pardon, statute of limitations, emoluments, subpoena, impoundment and Justice Department independence measures into one bill.
Has the Protecting Our Democracy Act passed?
No. As of Oct. 26, 2026, H.R. 8831 sat in House committees, and we found no record of a floor vote. The Senate version, S. 2838, introduced by Sen. Adam Schiff in September 2025, has not been enacted either.
Would the Protecting Our Democracy Act ban self-pardons?
It would declare a president’s self-pardon void. Since courts have never decided a self-pardon case, and Garland holds that Congress may not narrow pardons, whether a statute can do that is an unsettled constitutional question.
Does the bill extend the statute of limitations for Trump?
It would pause federal limitation periods for any sitting president or vice president, and would apply to earlier offenses only if their deadlines had not already passed when the bill became law. It names no individual.
Who supports the Protecting Our Democracy Act?
Rep. Raskin’s office listed 98 cosponsors at introduction and endorsements from groups including Public Citizen, CREW, Protect Democracy and the Project On Government Oversight.
Sources
- H.R. 8831, Protecting Our Democracy Act (Introduced in House) — U.S. Government Publishing Office, May 14, 2026
- Raskin, Garcia and Morelle Unveil Landmark Legislation to Curb Trump Administration’s Historic Abuses of Power, Profiteering from Public Office — Office of Rep. Jamie Raskin, May 14, 2026
- S. 2838, Protecting Our Democracy Act (Introduced in Senate) — U.S. Government Publishing Office, September 17, 2025
- Supreme Court orders dismissal of emoluments cases against Trump as moot — ABA Journal, January 25, 2021
- Statute of Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: An Overview (RL31253) — Congressional Research Service, via EveryCRSReport, November 14, 2017
- House kills Rep. Al Green’s resolution to impeach Trump — CBS News, September 15, 2026
- Inside Democrats’ oversight playbook for Trump’s final 2 years — The Hill, October 21, 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
- A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution, 24 Op. O.L.C. 222 — U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, October 16, 2000
- Democrats plan investigations, affordability efforts if they reclaim Congress — Christian Science Monitor, October 15, 2026
- Top Senate Democrats Call for Probes Into Trump Crypto Earnings — Bloomberg Government, July 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.