ARTICLE ONE Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Roy, Chip [R-TX-21]
- Committees
- Rules Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Aug 20, 2026
Bottom line
The ARTICLE ONE Act shifts significant power from the Executive to the Legislative branch regarding national emergency declarations, aiming to restore congressional oversight and approval.
What it actually does
This bill, the "ARTICLE ONE Act," significantly amends the National Emergencies Act by requiring explicit congressional approval for presidential declarations of national emergencies and their subsequent renewals. It establishes a 30-day temporary effective period for new emergency declarations and powers, after which a joint resolution of approval from Congress is necessary for continuation. The bill also mandates detailed reporting from the President to Congress on the necessity, duration, actions, and expenditures related to national emergencies, while carving out an exception for emergencies declared solely under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) unless other emergency powers are also invoked.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill reasserts Congress's constitutional role in declaring war and exercising legislative authority, preventing potential executive overreach and ensuring greater accountability for the use of emergency powers. They contend it would prevent Presidents from unilaterally maintaining open-ended emergencies or exercising broad powers without legislative consent, thereby upholding the separation of powers.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the bill could unduly restrict a President's ability to respond swiftly and decisively to genuine national crises, potentially delaying critical actions during times of urgent need. They may contend that the 30-day approval window and the procedural hurdles for congressional action could paralyze effective executive response, especially in rapidly evolving situations.
The bill is moderately complex, requiring careful reading to understand the procedural changes. The estimated 25 minutes is reasonable for an informed reader, but the 30-day congressional review period for emergencies highlights the need for rapid legislative comprehension.
Section 1
Short Title: "ARTICLE ONE Act"
This section establishes the official short title of the bill as the "Assuring that Robust, Thorough, and Informed Congressional Leadership is Exercised Over National Emergencies Act" or the "ARTICLE ONE Act." This name reflects the bill's intent to reinforce Article I of the Constitution, which grants legislative powers to Congress, in the context of national emergency declarations.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the name clearly communicates the bill's purpose of restoring congressional authority and oversight over national emergencies, aligning with constitutional principles.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against the short title of a bill, as it is primarily for identification.
Tradeoffs
None apparent for the title itself.
Section 2, new Title II, Section 201(a)
Presidential Authority to Declare National Emergencies with Congressional Transmission
This provision reiterates the President's authority to declare national emergencies by proclamation, but crucially requires immediate transmission of such proclamation to Congress and publication in the Federal Register. This sets the stage for the subsequent congressional review process, ensuring that Congress is promptly informed of any new emergency declaration.
Section 2, new Title II, Section 201(b)
Requirement to Specify Emergency Powers
This section mandates that the President must specify the exact provisions of law under which they intend to exercise emergency powers, either in the initial proclamation or in subsequent Executive orders. These specifications must also be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to Congress. This prevents the President from broadly invoking emergency powers without clearly defining their scope.
Section 2, new Title II, Section 201(c)
Prohibitions on Subsequent Actions if Emergencies Not Approved
This provision introduces significant restrictions if Congress fails to approve an emergency declaration or specific powers within the 30-day period. If a national emergency is not approved, the President cannot declare a subsequent emergency "with respect to the same circumstances" for the remainder of their term. If specific powers are not approved, the President cannot exercise those powers for that emergency for the remainder of their term. This creates a strong incentive for presidential declarations to gain congressional support.
Section 2, new Title II, Section 202(a)
30-Day Limit for Emergency Declarations and Powers
This section establishes that a national emergency declaration, and any specific emergency powers invoked, will automatically terminate after 30 calendar days unless a joint resolution of approval is enacted by Congress. This means that presidential emergency actions are temporary by default and require affirmative legislative consent to continue beyond this initial period. An exception is made if Congress cannot convene due to an armed attack or another national emergency.
Section 2, new Title II, Section 202(b)
Annual Congressional Approval for Emergency Renewals
This provision requires that any national emergency, once approved, must be renewed annually by both an Executive order from the President and a joint resolution of approval from Congress. Without this dual action, the emergency automatically terminates after one year. This ensures ongoing legislative review and consent for the continuation of any emergency.
Section 2, new Title II, Section 202(c)
Conditions and Effects of Emergency Termination
This section outlines the conditions under which a national emergency terminates (e.g., after 30 days without approval, after one year without renewal, by Act of Congress, or by Presidential proclamation). Crucially, it specifies that upon termination, all emergency powers cease, unobligated reprogrammed funds are returned, and contracts entered into under emergency authorities are terminated, with a savings provision for existing legal actions or matured rights.
Section 2, new Title II, Section 203
Congressional Review Process for Emergency Approvals
This section defines a "joint resolution of approval" as a measure that solely approves an emergency proclamation/Executive order and a list of specified statutory provisions. It then lays out detailed, expedited procedures for its consideration in both the House and Senate, including automatic committee discharge after 10 days, limited debate, and restrictions on amendments (allowing only amendments to strike or add specified powers). It also includes provisions for reconvening Congress during recesses.
Section 3, amending Section 401 of the National Emergencies Act
Expanded Presidential Reporting on Emergencies
This section significantly expands the President's reporting obligations to Congress regarding national emergencies. It requires detailed reports upon declaration or renewal, including circumstances, estimated duration, intended actions, statutory authorities, estimated expenditures, and a summary of past actions for renewals. It also mandates periodic (at least every 6 months) reports on the status, expenditures, and actions taken, and requires making these reports publicly available.
Section 4, adding new Title VI to the National Emergencies Act
Exemption for International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) Emergencies
This section creates a new Title VI in the National Emergencies Act, specifically for national emergencies where the President only proposes to exercise powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The new congressional approval requirements of Title II (added by Section 2) will not apply to these IEEPA-only emergencies. However, if the President also proposes to use any other emergency powers in addition to IEEPA, then the new Title II approval requirements will apply. This effectively grandfathers in the existing, less stringent review process for IEEPA-only emergencies.
This clause states that no future law can supersede the new Title II (congressional review requirements) unless it does so in "specific terms, referring to this title, and declaring that the new law supersedes the provisions of this title."
Section 2, new Title II, Section 201(d)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to protect a bill's core provisions from being inadvertently or implicitly repealed by future legislation. It ensures that any future changes to emergency powers review must be explicit and intentional.
Case for: Proponents would argue this clause is essential to safeguard the legislative reforms, ensuring that the enhanced congressional oversight cannot be undone without clear and deliberate action by Congress.
Case against: Opponents might argue that such a clause could make it harder to adapt emergency powers legislation in the future, even if circumstances genuinely warrant a different approach, by requiring specific legislative language that might be difficult to achieve.
Estimated impact: Ensures the durability of the bill's core reforms.
This clause specifies that the detailed congressional review procedures (Section 203) are enacted as an exercise of the rulemaking power of each House. It clarifies that these rules supersede other rules only when inconsistent and affirms the constitutional right of each House to change its own rules at any time.
Section 2, new Title II, Section 203(d)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to ensure that procedural rules enacted into public law are understood to be within the purview of each chamber's constitutional authority to govern its own proceedings. It prevents challenges to the constitutionality of the procedural mandates.
Case for: Proponents would argue this clause is necessary to legally establish the procedural framework within the constitutional powers of Congress, ensuring the enforceability of the expedited review process.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against such a clause, as it is a technical legal clarification.
Estimated impact: Provides legal grounding for the bill's procedural mechanisms.