Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
This bill prohibits the Secretary of State from holding or otherwise carrying out the duties of any other Federal position. It also bars obligation or expenditure of federal funds for the Secretary’s salaries or expenses if the Secretary holds or carries out duties of another Federal position.
Liberals emphasize accountability and dedicated diplomatic focus
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly states a narrow substantive prohibition but provides limited statutory craftsmanship: it lacks definitional clarity, implementation procedures, integration with existing law, fiscal acknowledgment, edge-case handling, and accountability measures.
This bill prohibits the Secretary of State from holding or otherwise carrying out the duties of any other Federal position.
It also bars obligation or expenditure of federal funds for the Secretary’s salaries or expenses if the Secretary holds or carries out duties of another Federal position.
The bill is short and narrowly framed to prevent dual-hatting of the Secretary of State.
Content is non‑controversial and low cost, but many single‑issue bills stall in committee and lacks built-in exceptions.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly states a narrow substantive prohibition but provides limited statutory craftsmanship: it lacks definitional clarity, implementation procedures, integration with existing law, fiscal acknowledgment, edge-case handling, and accountability measures.
Liberals emphasize accountability and dedicated diplomatic focus
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals emphasize accountability and dedicated diplomatic focus
Likely supportive: the bill prevents concentration of power and conflicts of interest by ensuring the Secretary focuses on one role.
It aligns with norms of oversight, accountability, and professionalized diplomacy.
Some supporters may seek clarifying language to preserve emergency response capacity.
Generally favorable to the principle of separating major executive duties but cautious about unintended operational effects.
Supports measures that clarify authority while preserving necessary flexibility for short-term emergencies.
Would likely request precise definitions and limited exceptions.
Skeptical or somewhat opposed: sees this as an undue constraint on executive branch flexibility.
Concerns focus on restricting the President’s authority to assign acting officials and on operational impacts for national security.
Some conservatives may support the anti-concentration principle but oppose statutory micromanagement.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Content is non‑controversial and low cost, but many single‑issue bills stall in committee and lacks built-in exceptions.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals emphasize accountability and dedicated diplomatic focus
Content is non‑controversial and low cost, but many single‑issue bills stall in committee and lacks built-in exceptions.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly states a narrow substantive prohibition but provides limited statutory craftsmanship: it lacks definitional clarity, implementation procedures, integration wi…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.