SB 4644, titled the "Drain the Slush Fund Act," would amend section 1304 of title 31 of the U.S. Code, which governs payments from the Judgment Fund. The bill adds a new restriction stating that no judgment, award, compromise settlement, interest, or costs may be paid from that fund for claims or lawsuits filed by the President or Vice President. In practical terms, it would bar use of the Judgment Fund to satisfy monetary outcomes in litigation initiated by those offices.
The bill also makes the change retroactive to any pending case and to any cause of action arising on or after January 20, 2025. That means it would affect not only future claims but also certain ongoing matters tied to presidential or vice-presidential lawsuits filed after that date. The measure is narrow in scope, but it directly alters the federal rules governing when the government may pay judgments and settlements from a permanent, indefinite appropriation.
The bill would amend federal appropriations law by adding a categorical exclusion to the Judgment Fund statute in 31 U.S.C. 1304. If enacted, agencies and the Treasury would be prohibited from authorizing payment of judgments, awards, settlements, interest, or costs arising from lawsuits or claims filed by the President or Vice President. The practical effect would be to limit access to federal funds for those specific litigants and to change how certain claims against or by those offices are resolved.
There is no recorded committee debate or vote history in the provided materials, so formal sentiment cannot be measured from hearings or roll calls. The bill’s title and structure suggest a strongly critical posture toward the use of public funds for claims brought by the President or Vice President, but the available record does not show any expressed support or opposition from committee members. The bill has only been introduced and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The main point of contention is likely to be whether Congress should single out lawsuits or claims filed by the President or Vice President for special treatment under the Judgment Fund. Supporters would likely argue that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay awards or settlements in such cases, while opponents may argue the measure is overly targeted, could interfere with legitimate litigation, and may raise fairness or separation-of-powers concerns. The retroactive applicability to pending cases and causes of action arising after January 20, 2025 may also be controversial because it could affect existing disputes already in motion.