___ Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Rogers, Mike D. [R-AL-3]
- Committees
- Oversight and Government Reform Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jan 7, 2026
Bottom line
This bill significantly shifts power from the Executive Branch and federal agencies to Congress by mandating legislative approval for high-impact executive actions and regulations.
What it actually does
This bill mandates that all "major" Executive Orders and "major" federal agency rules must receive explicit congressional approval through a joint resolution before they can take effect. It establishes detailed fast-track procedures for Congress to consider these approval resolutions and defines what constitutes a "major" action based on economic impact and other criteria.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this legislation enhances democratic accountability, restores legislative authority, and reduces regulatory burden by ensuring that significant policy changes originating from the executive branch or federal agencies have democratic legitimacy through congressional consent.
Opponents contend
Critics contend this bill creates unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles, politicizes essential government functions, and could lead to legislative gridlock, thereby slowing down critical responses to emergencies and hindering effective governance.
The bill is moderately complex due to its procedural nature, requiring careful reading, but the time given for congressional review (70 days) is substantial for a single action.
Section 2
Congressional Review of Executive Orders
Before any Executive Order (EO) can take effect, the President must submit a report to Congress and the Comptroller General, including the EO's text, a concise statement, its classification (major/nonmajor), a list of related executive actions, and the proposed effective date. Major EOs require a joint resolution of approval from Congress to take effect, while nonmajor EOs take effect after submission. If a joint resolution for a major EO is not enacted within 70 session or legislative days, the EO is not approved and cannot take effect.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision restores the constitutional balance of power, preventing presidential overreach and ensuring that significant policy changes originating from the executive branch have democratic legitimacy through congressional consent.
Critics contend
Critics contend this could paralyze the executive branch, making it difficult for the President to respond swiftly to national crises or implement policy efficiently, potentially leading to governmental gridlock.
Tradeoffs
Balances executive efficiency and responsiveness against legislative oversight and democratic accountability.
Section 2(c)
Emergency Exception for Major Executive Orders
This provision allows a major Executive Order to take effect for a single 90-calendar-day period without prior congressional approval if the President determines it is necessary due to an imminent threat to health or safety, another emergency, for criminal law enforcement, national security, or pursuant to an international trade agreement. This temporary effect does not, however, bypass the full, long-term congressional approval process.
Section 3
Congressional Approval Procedure for Major Executive Orders
This section establishes a fast-track procedure for Congress to consider joint resolutions of approval for major Executive Orders. Such resolutions are non-amendable, are automatically introduced by majority leaders in each chamber, and have strict time limits for committee consideration and floor votes. Specifically, committees must report within 15 session/legislative days, and a vote on final passage must occur within 15 session/legislative days after reporting or discharge.
Section 4, amending 5 U.S.C. Chapter 8
Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking
This section replaces the existing Chapter 8 of Title 5, U.S. Code, to require federal agencies to submit detailed reports on all rules (major and nonmajor) to Congress and the Comptroller General before they can take effect. For major rules, agencies must also submit cost-benefit analyses, small business impact analyses, unfunded mandates analyses, and other relevant information. Major rules require a joint resolution of approval from Congress to take effect within 70 session or legislative days, while nonmajor rules take effect after submission but can be disapproved by Congress.
Section 4, amending 5 U.S.C. Sec. 804(2)
Definition of "Major Rule"
This provision defines a "major rule" as any rule that the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) finds has resulted in or is likely to result in: an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.
Section 4, amending 5 U.S.C. Sec. 805
Limitations on Judicial Review
This provision states that determinations, findings, actions, or omissions related to the congressional review process itself are not subject to judicial review. However, courts may still determine whether a federal agency has completed the necessary procedural requirements for a rule to take effect. It also clarifies that congressional approval of a rule does not grant or modify statutory authority, extinguish claims against defects in a rule, or form part of the record in judicial proceedings, except to determine if the rule is in effect.
If a report on a major Executive Order or rule is submitted late in a congressional session (within 60 session or legislative days before adjournment), the review period effectively restarts in the succeeding session of Congress. This means Congress gets a fresh 70-day window to review the action when the new session convenes.
Section 2(d) and Section 4, amending 5 U.S.C. 801(d)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice in bills establishing congressional review mechanisms. It's a technical fix designed to ensure that executive actions submitted at the very end of a Congress don't escape review due to lack of time, rather than an evasive maneuver.
Case for: Ensures that the congressional review process cannot be circumvented by strategically submitting major executive actions just before a congressional recess or adjournment, thereby preserving the full intent of the bill.
Case against: Could create uncertainty for agencies and the public regarding the effective date of rules or EOs submitted late in a session, as their fate would be deferred to the next Congress, potentially causing delays in critical policy implementation.
Estimated impact: High, as it prevents "midnight" executive actions from avoiding review and ensures consistent application of the approval process regardless of the legislative calendar.
This section explicitly exempts rules concerning monetary policy proposed or implemented by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System or the Federal Open Market Committee from the congressional review requirements of this chapter.
Section 4, amending 5 U.S.C. 806
Why it matters:This is a standard carve-out in legislation affecting regulatory oversight, recognizing the independence and specialized nature of monetary policy decisions. It's a technical exemption rather than an evasive maneuver, reflecting a long-standing consensus on Federal Reserve autonomy.
Case for: Supporters argue that maintaining the independence of the Federal Reserve in monetary policy decisions is crucial for economic stability and prevents the politicization of sensitive financial tools, which could have detrimental effects on the economy.
Case against: Critics might argue that even monetary policy decisions can have major economic impacts and should not be entirely exempt from democratic oversight, especially if they disproportionately affect certain sectors or have significant distributional consequences.
Estimated impact: High, as it preserves the autonomy of a critical economic institution, ensuring its ability to act swiftly and independently on monetary policy without legislative interference.