Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 23 - 19.
Requires federal agencies to place a prominent “guidance clarity statement” on administrative guidance documents issued under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4)(A). The statement must say the guidance has no force of law and does not bind the public or the agency.
Progressive fears chilling effect on protective guidance.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused administrative directive that is specific about what must be included in certain agency guidance, which agencies and documents are covered, and when implementation must occur.
Requires federal agencies to place a prominent “guidance clarity statement” on administrative guidance documents issued under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4)(A).
The statement must say the guidance has no force of law and does not bind the public or the agency.
The Director of OMB must issue implementing guidance within 90 days of enactment, and agencies must comply beginning 30 days after that OMB guidance.
Narrow, low-cost administrative fix increases viability, but ideological objections about agency authority and Senate procedure lower odds.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused administrative directive that is specific about what must be included in certain agency guidance, which agencies and documents are covered, and when implementation must occur. It provides clear textual requirements and a timeline for OMB to issue implementing instructions.
Progressive fears chilling effect on protective guidance.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressive fears chilling effect on protective guidance.
Skeptical: views the bill as a procedural constraint that could weaken agencies' ability to protect public health, safety, and civil rights.
Sees some value in transparency, but worries this could be used to avoid substantive obligations or chill useful guidance.
Cautiously supportive of clearer labeling but pragmatic about implementation risks.
Prefers well-drafted OMB guidance to avoid administrative burdens and unintended weakening of necessary regulatory guidance.
Strongly favorable: sees the bill as a necessary check on agency overreach and a correction to agencies issuing binding rules without notice-and-comment.
Views the required statement as restoring separation of powers and predictability for businesses.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow, low-cost administrative fix increases viability, but ideological objections about agency authority and Senate procedure lower odds.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressive fears chilling effect on protective guidance.
Narrow, low-cost administrative fix increases viability, but ideological objections about agency authority and Senate procedure lower odds.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused administrative directive that is specific about what must be included in certain agency guidance, which agencies and documents are covered, and…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.