Skip to content

DOJ-005 — Senior DOJ Recusal Review and Transparency Act

A BILL

To amend section 528 of title 28, United States Code, to require independent review, documentation, temporary transfer of authority, transparency, and compliance safeguards for Department of Justice recusal decisions involving senior officials.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Senior DOJ Recusal Review and Transparency Act.”

SEC. 2. SENIOR-OFFICIAL RECUSAL REVIEW.

Section 528 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by designating the existing text as subsection (a) and adding at the end the following:

“(b) Senior Official Recusal Review.—

“(1) Covered officials.—For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘covered official’ means the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, Solicitor General, Associate Attorney General, an Assistant Attorney General, a United States Attorney, the Director or Deputy Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and any acting official exercising substantially equivalent authority.

“(2) Covered determinations.—For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘covered determination’ means a determination concerning recusal, nonrecusal, partial recusal, authorization to participate, modification of recusal, termination of recusal, successor authority, access restriction, or substantially equivalent participation question involving a covered official in a criminal investigation or prosecution, or in a matter of substantial national importance designated by regulation.

“(3) Written disclosure.—A covered official shall promptly disclose in writing any relationship, interest, prior participation, public commitment, political relationship, personal relationship, financial interest, covered relationship, or other fact that may require disqualification, limitation, authorization, or impartiality review under this section, section 208 of title 18, Department regulations, executive-branch ethics regulations, professional-responsibility rules, or other applicable law or policy.

“(4) Independent review panel.—

“(A) A covered determination shall be made by a senior-official recusal review panel established by regulation.

“(B) The panel shall include qualified career representatives of the Department’s ethics office, the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Justice, and the Office of Government Ethics, except that regulations may provide substitute or additional career reviewers when required by law, privilege, classified-information restrictions, recusal, vacancy, operational necessity, or institutional conflict.

“(C) The affected covered official may provide information to the panel but may not select, remove, supervise, direct, retaliate against, or otherwise influence a panel member with respect to the covered determination.

“(D) A panel member shall be disqualified from participating in a covered determination if the member has a personal, financial, political, professional, supervisory, or other conflict materially affecting the member’s impartiality.

“(5) Temporary transfer of authority.—When a substantial and nonfrivolous recusal question is presented, the covered official shall temporarily cease participation in the matter and authority shall pass to the lawful successor official until the panel issues a written determination, unless the panel determines in writing that temporary transfer is unnecessary to prevent conflict, appearance of conflict, or evasion.

“(6) Timing.—The panel shall act promptly. Regulations shall establish expedited procedures for urgent matters and should ordinarily require a covered determination within 7 days after the panel receives materially complete information, unless a written extension is necessary.

“(7) Written determination.—Each covered determination shall identify the governing authority, material facts, scope, duration, successor official, access restrictions, permitted contacts, procedure for reconsideration, and any authorization to participate.

“(8) Public and congressional notice.—

“(A) The Department shall release a public version of a covered determination to the maximum extent consistent with lawful secrecy, privilege, classified-information protection, investigative integrity, fair-trial rights, witness safety, confidential-source protection, and legitimate privacy.

“(B) For a nationally significant matter, an unredacted or less-redacted version shall be preserved and transmitted confidentially to the chair and ranking minority member of the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary, subject to lawful safeguards.

“(C) Public or congressional notice may be delayed only to the minimum extent necessary to protect an active matter or legally protected information. Delay may not be used to conceal a conflict, evade oversight, or defeat this subsection.

“(9) Effect of recusal.—A recused covered official may not directly or indirectly supervise the matter; influence staffing, funding, jurisdiction, access, case strategy, timing, public characterization, appeal, or disposition; communicate a preferred outcome; receive nonpublic briefings except as specifically authorized; or cause another person to exercise authority on the official’s behalf.

“(10) Authorization to participate.—Any authorization for a covered official to participate notwithstanding a disclosed conflict, relationship, appearance concern, or impartiality concern shall be narrowly tailored, written, supported by specific findings, and limited in duration. Generalized claims of convenience, policy control, personal confidence, or ordinary hierarchy are insufficient.

“(11) Modification or termination.—A recusal may be modified or terminated only through a new written panel determination based on materially changed facts or law. The affected covered official may not resume participation unilaterally.

“(12) Compliance and corrective action.—

“(A) Material nondisclosure, misrepresentation, participation contrary to a binding determination, retaliation against reviewing officials, destruction or concealment of records, or indirect evasion shall be referred to the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Justice and the Office of Professional Responsibility.

“(B) Corrective action may include removal from the matter, reassignment of authority, access restriction, preservation order, reconsideration of affected administrative decisions, and appropriate personnel action under existing law.

“(C) Nothing in this subsection authorizes the panel, the Office of Government Ethics, the Inspector General, the Office of Professional Responsibility, or Congress to direct investigative or prosecutorial merits, require prosecution or declination, dictate case strategy, or exercise prosecutorial authority.

“(13) Annual reporting.—The Department shall publish annual aggregate information concerning covered determinations, authorizations, violations, corrective actions, average resolution times, delayed notices, and implementation problems. The Inspector General shall report material interference with panel operations to the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary.

“(14) Regulations.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Attorney General shall promulgate regulations to carry out this subsection, after consultation with the Office of Government Ethics, the Inspector General of the Department of Justice, the Office of Professional Responsibility, career ethics officials, prosecutors, defense practitioners, and relevant congressional committees.

“(15) Relation to other law.—This subsection supplements and does not narrow section 208 of title 18, this section, Department regulations, executive-branch ethics regulations, professional-responsibility rules, whistleblower protections, civil-service protections, Inspector General authorities, congressional oversight authorities, or any more protective recusal, impartiality, ethics, or conflict-of-interest requirement.”.

SEC. 3. CONFORMING RULEMAKING AND IMPLEMENTATION.

Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall review and revise Department regulations, including section 45.2 of title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, and any relevant Justice Manual provisions, to conform to the amendments made by this Act.

SEC. 4. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Act, any amendment made by this Act, or any application of such provision or amendment is held invalid, the remainder shall not be affected.

Budgetary Impact Statement

Administrative workload is likely, including ethics review, written determinations, reporting, and OIG/OPR referrals; no new appropriation is specified.

Note: Preliminary ARRP assessment only; not a CBO, OMB, agency, or legislative-counsel score.

Drafting Notes

  • The bill now amends existing DOJ disqualification authority in 28 U.S.C. § 528 rather than relying on a wholly freestanding recusal architecture.
  • Section 528 is the preferred statutory hook because it already directs the Attorney General to issue DOJ disqualification rules for personal, financial, or political conflicts or appearances of conflict.
  • The proposal leaves existing substantive conflict rules intact and strengthens senior-official disclosure, independent review, transfer, notice, anti-evasion, and compliance mechanisms.
  • The panel decides only who may participate and who temporarily exercises authority; it may not direct investigative or prosecutorial merits.
  • OGE participation supplies government-wide ethics expertise, while DOJ OIG and OPR referrals preserve existing oversight and professional-responsibility channels.
  • Confidential congressional notice is limited by lawful secrecy, privilege, classified-information protection, investigative integrity, fair-trial rights, witness safety, confidential-source protection, and privacy.
  • The internal project review identified no direct prior bill creating this exact senior-official recusal-review panel. The closest legislative analogue is the Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act, S. 2644, 115th Congress, because it used a recusal-aware DOJ successor rule for special-counsel removal.
  • The internal project review did not assign a dollar estimate because the proposal specifies administrative review and reporting duties but no new funded program or appropriation.

Source Notes

  • Source review should include DOJ's statutory disqualification-rule authority, 28 U.S.C. § 528; the financial-conflict statute, 18 U.S.C. § 208; DOJ's attorney disqualification rule, 28 C.F.R. § 45.2; the executive-branch impartiality standard in 5 C.F.R. § 2635.502; and Inspector General authorities in 5 U.S.C. chapter 4.
  • Institutional-fit review should include OGE's executive-branch ethics-program authority under 5 U.S.C. § 13122, DOJ OIG's oversight role, and DOJ OPR's professional-misconduct jurisdiction.
  • Prior-proposal review should include the Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act, S. 2644, 115th Congress, and the official reported-text PDF at GovInfo.
  • Pending judicial vulnerability review should refresh Supreme Court removal-power and executive-control dockets, including Trump v. Slaughter, No. 25-332, before public circulation.
  • Current and follow-up internal project reviews should test whether OGE participation should be voting, consultative, or review-only to reduce Article II and DOJ-management objections while preserving independent ethics input.
  • Legislative-counsel review should verify whether the amendment should be codified directly in 28 U.S.C. § 528, in a neighboring section, or as a new section cross-referenced by section 528.