H.R. 2737, nicknamed the ELON MUSK Act, is a proposed bill—not an enacted ban. Its introduced text would prohibit special Government employees (SGEs) from entering into or benefiting from any part of a federal contract or agreement, and would require qualifying contracts already held on the date of enactment to be terminated. Congress.gov’s reviewed record lists the bill as introduced and referred to committee, not as law.
What is the ELON MUSK Act?
H.R. 2737 was introduced on April 8, 2025, by Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI), and referred that day to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Its short title is the “Eliminating Looting of Our Nation by Mitigating Unethical State Kleptocracy Act of 2025.” The official title describes a proposal “to prohibit special Government employees from holding contracts or agreements with the Federal Government, and for other purposes.” Congress.gov’s bill record identifies its status as “Introduced.”
That status matters: the proposal’s restrictions do not currently apply as a new law. The bill’s introduced text is the version described here; its provisions should not be treated as enacted requirements.
What would the bill do to federal contracts?
Section 2 would bar a special Government employee from entering into or benefiting from any part of a contract or agreement with the federal government. The operative sentence says: “A special Government employee may not enter into or benefit from any part of a contract or agreement with the Federal Government.”
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
#1 Best Overall
The bill also addresses contracts that exist when the law would take effect. It says: “Any contract or agreement with the Federal Government held by a special Government employee on the date of the enactment of this Act shall be terminated.” In other words, if enacted as introduced, it would require termination of qualifying contracts held by an SGE on that date.
The two-page introduced text does not specify exceptions, an agency procedure, enforcement details, or how the phrase “benefit from any part” would apply to particular indirect interests. The text therefore does not establish how a specific company, contract, or financial arrangement would be treated.
Rank #2
Who qualifies as a special government employee?
H.R. 2737 imports the definition of “special Government employee” from section 202 of title 18 of the U.S. Code rather than creating a new definition. A 2025 opinion from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia quotes the statutory definition as covering an officer or employee of the executive or legislative branch retained, designated, appointed, or employed to perform temporary duties for no more than 130 days during any period of 365 consecutive days, whether full-time or intermittent. The court opinion provides that description of the statute.
This is a general orientation, not a determination that any particular person meets the definition. The bill’s incorporation of section 202 does not by itself resolve an individual appointment or the treatment of a specific interest.
Why did Pocan propose it?
In a February 5, 2025 press release, Pocan argued that an SGE who can recommend agency spending decisions could steer federal spending toward personal interests. He presented the proposal as similar to restrictions applying to Members of Congress and other federal employees. That is the sponsor’s stated rationale; it is not a finding made by the bill text or a neutral adjudication. Pocan’s press release sets out his argument.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Is the ELON MUSK Act law?
No. The Congress.gov record reviewed lists H.R. 2737 as introduced, with referral to House Oversight on April 8, 2025, and no subsequent action listed in that record. The page’s tracker listed 18 cosponsors, with the last listed addition dated May 5, 2025; that is a dated count, not a current total. Check the live Congress.gov record for any later status updates.
The introduced bill does not establish that a new ban currently applies to Musk, any named company, or any existing federal contract. Whether later legislative action occurred is a question for the current bill record; the proposal’s text alone is not evidence of enactment or termination.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
Recommended Free Tools
