Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
The bill requires federal agencies to prepare zero-based budgets—systematic reviews of objectives, operations, and costs—every sixth year covering the next fiscal year and four ensuing years. Except for the Department of Defense and the National Nuclear Security Administration, each agency must also identify program-level recommendations to cut or reduce appropriations totaling at least a 2% reduction from the previous year's discretionary spending.
Left fears mandated 2% cuts will harm social and environmental programs
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a clear administrative requirement—periodic zero‑based budget submissions and cut recommendations—but provides limited operational detail.
The bill requires federal agencies to prepare zero-based budgets—systematic reviews of objectives, operations, and costs—every sixth year covering the next fiscal year and four ensuing years.
Except for the Department of Defense and the National Nuclear Security Administration, each agency must also identify program-level recommendations to cut or reduce appropriations totaling at least a 2% reduction from the previous year's discretionary spending.
Modest chance due to narrow administrative scope, but politically sensitive fiscal mandate, limited compromise features, and Senate obstacles reduce likelihood.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a clear administrative requirement—periodic zero‑based budget submissions and cut recommendations—but provides limited operational detail. It defines the central concept, identifies recipients, and sets a cadence, yet omits critical implementation elements such as timelines tied to the budget calendar, procedural standards, resource authorization, comprehensive integration with existing budget law and guidance, and enforcement or review mechanisms.
Left fears mandated 2% cuts will harm social and environmental programs
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Left fears mandated 2% cuts will harm social and environmental programs
Skeptical overall.
Supports transparency and program review in principle but worries this mandates cuts to social, civil rights, and environmental programs.
Sees the 2% reduction requirement as an arbitrary, recurring pressure to shrink discretionary funding.
Open to the bill’s intent to improve fiscal discipline and prioritization, but cautious about implementation costs and unintended consequences.
Wants clear methodology, OMB oversight, and protections for essential long-term investments.
Generally supportive.
Views zero-based budgeting and mandatory cuts as tools to shrink government, reduce waste, and force program prioritization.
Might prefer stronger cut targets or more frequent reviews.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Modest chance due to narrow administrative scope, but politically sensitive fiscal mandate, limited compromise features, and Senate obstacles reduce likelihood.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Left fears mandated 2% cuts will harm social and environmental programs
Modest chance due to narrow administrative scope, but politically sensitive fiscal mandate, limited compromise features, and Senate obstacl…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a clear administrative requirement—periodic zero‑based budget submissions and cut recommendations—but provides limited operational detail. It defines the…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.