What This Bill Does
The Federal Program Integrity and Fraud Prevention Act of 2025 would require people convicted of certain federal felonies tied to federal programs to be listed as excluded sources in the System for Award Management (SAM) Exclusions list. It applies when the felony arises from an agency contract, grant, cooperative agreement, loan, or other financial assistance, and it sets a 3-year prohibition unless an agency head grants a written waiver. The bill also requires the Attorney General to notify the Administrator of General Services about each covered conviction and directs the Attorney General, with GSA, to issue implementation guidance within 1 year of enactment.
- Creates a new 3-year exclusion for certain convicted individuals on the SAM Exclusions list.
- Applies to felonies tied to agency contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, loans, or other financial assistance.
- Covers crimes listed in title 18 sections 286, 287, 371, 641, 666, 1001, 1014, 1017, 1028, 1028A, 1030, 1031, 1040(a)(2), 1341, 1343, 1344, 1345, 1349, 1956, and 1957, plus section 16 of the Small Business Act.
- Allows an agency head to grant a written exemption and requires immediate transmission of that exemption to Congress.
- Requires the Attorney General and GSA to issue implementation guidance within 1 year after enactment.
Who This Bill Affects
For most people, this bill would not change day-to-day eligibility for federal benefits, but it would tighten how the government screens people who have been convicted of certain federal felonies tied to federal contracts, grants, loans, or other assistance. If someone falls within the covered offenses, they could be placed on the SAM Exclusions list for 3 years unless an agency head grants a written exemption. That could affect contractors, grant recipients, and others who rely on federal awards, while giving taxpayers some added protection against repeat fraud.
See how this bill affects you — sign in for a personalized analysisWho Supports & Opposes This
- Taxpayers concerned about fraud They would likely support a mandatory exclusion because it creates a clear consequence for people convicted of serious federal program fraud. Supporters can argue that a centralized SAM listing helps prevent repeat misuse of federal funds and protects public money.
- Federal procurement and grant integrity officials These stakeholders may favor a uniform rule that makes exclusions easier to identify and administer across agencies. The bill also preserves existing suspension and debarment tools, which supporters can see as strengthening the overall enforcement framework.
- Small businesses competing for federal work Honest firms may back the bill because it could reduce unfair competition from actors with fraud convictions. A cleaner exclusion system may help ensure awards go to entities with a better compliance record.
- Former offenders seeking to reenter federal contracting or assistance programs They may argue that a mandatory 3-year exclusion is too blunt and can block rehabilitation even when the conviction is old or the person has already paid a penalty. The waiver exists, but it depends on agency discretion rather than a guaranteed review standard.
- Nonprofit and grant recipients Organizations that rely on federal funding may worry that the covered-felony definition is broad and could create collateral consequences for individuals connected to their operations. They may also see added screening and compliance burdens as costly and time-consuming.
- Civil liberties and due-process advocates They may object that automatic exclusion based on a conviction or plea, including deferred-adjudication-type arrangements, can be overly punitive. They may also question whether agency-by-agency waivers will be applied consistently.
Key Implications
-
““identified as an excluded source on the System for Award Management Exclusions list””
This means the person would be flagged in the federal government’s main exclusion database, which agencies use when deciding who can receive contracts or assistance. In practice, it can block access to many federal opportunities for the duration of the exclusion.
-
““a 3-year prohibition for such person””
The bill sets a fixed exclusion period rather than leaving the length entirely to agency discretion. That creates predictability, but it also means the penalty is automatic unless a waiver is granted.
-
““the agency head may exempt an individual… in writing””
Agencies keep a safety valve for unusual cases. The written-exemption requirement and immediate transmission to Congress add transparency, but the decision still rests with the agency head.
-
““the Attorney General shall notify the Administrator of General Services””
This creates a formal reporting chain from criminal conviction to the federal exclusions database. It is meant to reduce delays or gaps that could let a convicted person continue receiving awards before the exclusion is entered.
-
““Nothing in this section may be construed to prohibit… suspension or debarment actions””
The bill does not replace existing enforcement tools. Agencies could still pursue other criminal, civil, or administrative remedies in addition to the new exclusion rule.
Latest Status
June 8, 2026
The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
Take Action
Get more from BillBoard
Free tools to understand, respond to, and track this bill.
Ask AI about this billData sourced from api.congress.gov.