EXCLAVE Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Larsen, Rick [D-WA-2]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 24, 2026
Bottom line
The EXCLAVE Act of 2026 establishes new procedural requirements for federal agencies to ensure residents of geographically isolated U.S. communities, known as pene-exclaves, have a dedicated channel to voice concerns about unique regulatory burdens during the rulemaking process.
What it actually does
This bill amends title 5, United States Code, to require federal agencies to conduct special consultations with residents of "pene-exclaves" when a proposed rule may impose a "unique burden" on them. Agencies must identify such burdens, hold public meetings for affected residents, and respond to their comments in the final rule. It also mandates the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to create a list of pene-exclaves and relevant governmental and non-profit contacts.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill is crucial for ensuring that federal regulations do not inadvertently create disproportionate or unforeseen hardships for residents of pene-exclaves, who face unique challenges due to their geographic isolation and reliance on travel through foreign territory. They contend it promotes equitable governance by giving a voice to communities often overlooked in broad rulemaking processes, preventing unintended consequences and fostering more responsive government.
Opponents contend
Critics might contend that this bill could introduce significant administrative burdens and potential delays into the federal rulemaking process, requiring agencies to develop new identification and consultation protocols. They may also raise concerns about the potential for subjective interpretations of "unique burden" or "impassable terrain," leading to disputes and further complicating regulatory development without a clear, proportional benefit.
The bill is short and straightforward, making it highly accessible for a quick and comprehensive understanding.
Section 2, amending 5 U.S.C. 553(f)(1)-(4)
Agency Consultation on Unique Burdens in Pene-Exclaves
This provision mandates that if a federal agency determines a proposed rule might uniquely burden residents of a pene-exclave, or if such a concern is raised during public comment, the agency must take specific steps. These steps include stating the potential burden in the notice of proposed rulemaking, holding a public meeting exclusively for pene-exclave residents to submit feedback, notifying relevant government officials, and publishing records of these meetings and comments. Finally, the agency must include a response to these comments in the final rule.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue this provision ensures that the specific challenges faced by residents of pene-exclaves, such as difficulties with border crossings or accessing essential services, are directly considered and addressed by federal agencies, leading to more tailored and equitable regulations.
Critics contend
Opponents might argue that these new procedural requirements could significantly prolong the rulemaking process, increase administrative costs for agencies, and potentially lead to delays in implementing necessary regulations, without a guarantee of substantial policy changes.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the goal of ensuring marginalized communities have a voice in federal policy with the potential for increased administrative burden and complexity in the regulatory process for federal agencies.
Section 2, amending 5 U.S.C. 553(f)(5)
Definitions of 'Unique Burden' and 'Pene-Exclave'
This section provides crucial definitions for the bill's application. A 'unique burden' is defined as any circumstance resulting from pene-exclave residence that hinders an individual's ability to cross borders, access emergency services, veterinary care, necessities like food or healthcare, or conduct trade or business. A 'pene-exclave' is defined as a region of a U.S. State or territory generally accessible by land only through a foreign country, explicitly excluding areas contiguous with the U.S. only by impassable terrain, and not applying to entire states or territories.
Section 3
OMB Establishment of Pene-Exclave List
Within 90 days of the Act's enactment, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is required to create and maintain a list of all pene-exclaves in the United States. This list must include appropriate contact information for relevant State, Tribal, county, and municipal governmental officials. Additionally, non-profit organizations (501(c)(3) exempt from taxation) domiciled in a pene-exclave can petition to be added to this list.
The definition of 'pene-exclave' explicitly states that a region is not considered generally accessible by land if its only geographic contiguity with another part of the United States is by reason of 'impassable terrain.'
Section 2, amending 5 U.S.C. 553(f)(5)(B)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for refining definitions and ensuring precise application of the law, preventing unintended broad interpretations.
Case for: Supporters would argue this clarification is vital to ensure the bill's focus remains on communities isolated by international borders, rather than those isolated by internal geographic features within the U.S., which might require different policy solutions.
Case against: Critics might suggest that the term 'impassable terrain' could be subjective and lead to disputes, potentially excluding communities that are genuinely isolated but technically contiguous, thereby limiting the bill's intended reach.
Estimated impact: This provision narrows the scope of communities eligible for the special consultation requirements, focusing the bill on international border-related isolation.
Any organization described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of such Code, that is domiciled in a pene-exclave, shall be added to the OMB's list of contacts upon filing a petition.
Section 3
Why it matters:This is a specific procedural detail for stakeholder engagement, often placed at the end of implementation sections.
Case for: Proponents would argue this empowers local non-profit organizations, which often have deep community ties and understanding, to ensure their voices are heard directly by federal agencies, supplementing official government contacts.
Case against: Critics might raise concerns about the administrative burden on OMB to manage petitions from numerous non-profits and to verify their eligibility, potentially complicating the maintenance of an accurate and efficient contact list.
Estimated impact: This provision broadens the range of stakeholders that federal agencies will be required to consult, potentially increasing the diversity of perspectives heard during rulemaking.