Sponsors (3)
The bill seeks to shrink costs and streamline federal operations, but the trade-off is greater risk of federal job losses, program eliminations, and weakened regulatory protections that could harm vulnerable populations and public safety.
Taxpayers could see lower federal spending and reduced tax burdens if reorganizations cut unnecessary positions and constrain net workforce and expenditures.
Federal operations could become more efficient and less duplicative, potentially improving government performance and reducing waste for citizens and state partners.
Businesses and other regulated entities could face lower compliance costs if the bill leads to elimination or reduction of rules deemed 'burdensome.'
Federal employees face a higher risk of job eliminations and layoffs because reducing staff is an explicit statutory purpose of reorganization plans.
Low-income individuals and other program beneficiaries could lose access to services if the bill permits abolishing enforcement functions or statutory programs relied on by Americans.
Consumers, workers, and communities could face weaker protections (consumer, worker safety, or environmental) if efforts to cut 'burdensome' rules remove important regulatory safeguards.
Based on analysis of 2 sections of legislative text.
Modifies executive reorganization law to broaden covered entities, prioritize cuts and workforce reduction, allow elimination of enforcement functions, and add a disapproval ground for plans that increase net staff or spending.
Official title: Amend chapter 9 of title 5, United States Code, to reauthorize the executive reorganization authority of the President and to ensure efficient executive reorganization, and for other purposes.
Introduced February 13, 2025 by Mike Lee · Last progress February 13, 2025
Changes federal reorganization law to make it easier for the executive branch to reorganize, shrink, or eliminate parts of the federal government. It broadens which entities count as “executive departments,” removes a prohibition on abolishing enforcement functions or statutory programs, adds new reasons a reorganization plan can be rejected (including plans that increase staff or spending), and updates language and some deadlines in the existing statute. The net effect is to expand executive-branch authority and flexibility to restructure agencies and operations, reduce workforce and compliance burdens, and alter the grounds on which Congress can disapprove reorganization plans.