Want my take on what this bill would do?
This is not an official government website.
Copyright © 2026 PLEJ LC. All rights reserved.
Adds a new clause (iv) to section 801(a)(1)(A) requiring that, if the rule relates to a reduction in force at the Federal agency authorized under subchapter I of chapter 35, the submission include a detailed justification that includes: (I) the specific reasons for the reduction in force; (II) the anticipated impact on the employees and operations of the Federal agency; (III) any alternatives considered and reasons for rejection; (IV) a summary of consultations the Federal agency has held; and (V) a summary of how the reduction in force will impact employees of the Federal agency who are veterans.
Revises paragraph (3) of section 804 to define 'rule' as having the meaning given in section 551 and to explicitly include: (i) a rule or order relating to a reduction in force at a Federal agency authorized under subchapter I of chapter 35; and (ii) any significant action by a Federal agency that substantially affects the rights or obligations of non-Federal agency parties, such as a workforce restructuring, office closure, or other action that has a material impact on the employees or operations of the Federal agency.
Requires federal agencies to provide a clear, detailed justification any time an agency rule relates to a reduction in force (RIF) under subchapter I of chapter 35, and expands the legal definition of “rule” to explicitly include RIFs and other major workforce actions. The change is intended to increase transparency and congressional oversight of workforce-rulemaking that affects federal staffing and personnel actions.
Amend 5 U.S.C. section 801(a)(1)(A)(ii) by striking the word "and" at the end of the clause.
Amend 5 U.S.C. section 801(a)(1)(A)(iii) by striking the period at the end and inserting "; and" to continue the list of clauses.
Add new clause 801(a)(1)(A)(iv): If a rule relates to a reduction in force at a Federal agency that is authorized under subchapter I of chapter 35, the rule must include a detailed justification for the reduction in force.
Require the detailed justification (801(a)(1)(A)(iv)(I)) to state the specific reasons for the reduction in force.
Require the detailed justification (801(a)(1)(A)(iv)(II)) to describe the anticipated impact of the reduction in force on the employees and operations of the Federal agency.
Who is affected and how:
Federal agencies: Must update internal rulemaking and HR procedures to prepare and include more detailed justifications for rules tied to reductions in force and major workforce actions. This raises administrative burden and may lengthen rulemaking timelines.
Federal employees: Potentially greater transparency when their positions or staffing structures are affected by agency rules tied to RIFs. The extra documentation could support oversight, bargaining, or legal challenges.
Human resources and managers within agencies: Will need to coordinate more closely with rulemaking/legal teams to produce the required justifications and to ensure workforce actions meet the broadened definition of "rule."
Congressional oversight bodies, Inspectors General, and GAO: Gain improved access to detailed rationales for workforce changes, aiding oversight and review.
Employee representatives and unions: Can use expanded records to negotiate, file grievances, or support challenges to workforce decisions.
Overall effect: The bill primarily increases procedural transparency and congressional/oversight visibility into agency workforce rulemaking. It does not itself alter substantive personnel rights, funding, or benefits, but it can influence timing, administrative workload, and the informational basis for oversight and legal review.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Introduced May 1, 2025 by Jeff Merkley · Last progress May 1, 2025
Expand sections to see detailed analysis
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Introduced in Senate