One of the foundational principles of American democracy is that all Americans have the right to express themselves, even when others don’t agree or like what they say. No president – Democrat or Republican – should have the power to punish people or organizations for their constitutionally protected speech, viewpoints, or political participation.

The Trump Administration has targeted individuals, nonprofits, law firms, universities, companies, media outlets, and other institutions they perceive as political enemies. While the Constitution and existing laws already prohibit political targeting, it has become clear that more concrete tools are needed to constrain government overreach. 

The No Political Enemies (NOPE) Act seeks to give those who have been targeted tools to fight back. 

What is the NOPE Act? 

The NOPE Act will empower any American who is targeted by the federal executive branch for what they say and believe with the tools they need to defend themselves in court, and strongly disincentivize political targeting by creating meaningful accountability for abuses. 

In addition to reaffirming the constitutionally protected right to free speech, it would also establish what’s called an “affirmative defense” and provide additional legal tools for those targeted in politically motivated criminal prosecutions, civil lawsuits, investigations, and other regulatory actions. The bill would also create an accountability structure for any executive branch agency or employee that uses federal funds to suppress protected speech by making them personally criminally liable for violations of the Anti-Deficiency Act and allowing victims of political targeting to sue them in their personal capacity.

The bill’s key provisions include: 

• Banning targeting of protected speech: The bill would enact a clear statutory declaration that no federal executive branch official may initiate or direct investigative, regulatory, or enforcement actions against Americans to suppress or burden constitutionally protected speech or association (i.e., politically motivated targeting).
• Statutory Defense in Political Targeting Cases: The bill would create an affirmative defense in criminal prosecutions and civil enforcement actions brought by the executive branch. If a defendant presents substantial evidence that protected speech or association was a motivating factor, the burden shifts to the government to prove that legitimate, non-protected grounds justified the action. As part of this inquiry, the court may grant expedited discovery into government motivations. This provides a tool for those wrongly targeted to get meaningful access to evidence, corrects the imbalance of proof, and allows courts to quickly dismiss abusive actions.
• Injunctions to Stop Political Target: The bill would allow a targeted individual or entity to bring a lawsuit to stop the federal executive branch from taking investigative, regulatory, or enforcement action that is substantially motivated by protected speech.
• Narrow Statutory Bivens-like Remedy to Deter Targeted Political Retaliation: The bill would establish a cause of action allowing individuals to sue federal executive officials for monetary damages when their First Amendment rights are violated due to politically motivated targeting. It would immunize officials who demonstrate that their actions were in good faith and not motivated by constitutionally protected speech, but end existing immunities for federal employees from lawsuits in their personal capacity.
• Attorney Fee-shifting to Deter Meritless Politically Motivated Enforcement: The bill would require the U.S. government to pay reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to targets who prevail in criminal prosecutions or civil enforcement actions, if the targets can demonstrate the government’s action was substantially motivated by a desire to suppress their constitutionally protected speech or association.
• Prohibition on Use of Funds for Politically Motivated Targeting: The bill would prohibit the use of federal funds for any investigatory, regulatory, or enforcement action initiated or pursued to suppress protected speech. Violations would trigger the Anti-Deficiency Act, creating administrative and potential criminal liability, and allow private parties to sue to prevent violations.
• Reports to Congress: This bill would require regular reporting to Congress about the Department of Justice’s actions with regard to criminal investigative or enforcement matters of significant public interest or sensitivity.

The bill has been introduced in Congress by. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and U.S. Representative Jason Crow (D-Colo.-6) with original cosponsors Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), and U.S. Senators Cory Booker (D-N.J.) Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Representatives Greg Casar (D-Texas-35), Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.-06), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.-14), and Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.-10).