Bill to fast-track approval of Trump and Musk agency cuts advanced by House committee

Updated: 11:00 a.m. 

A House committee on Tuesday advanced legislation that would set up a process for Congress to approve President Donald Trump’s overhauls of federal agencies. 

The Reorganizing Government Act of 2025 (HR 1295), which was approved in a 23-20 party-line vote, would resurrect a lapsed authority enabling the president to submit a plan for restructuring agencies that Congress must vote on within 90 days. Such a plan is not subject to the filibuster, meaning the Senate can clear it with a simple majority instead of the usual 60-vote threshold. 

Still, the bill itself would need 60 votes for the Senate to pass it, which is unlikely. 

“The reason they are pushing for this bill is because Donald Trump, Elon Musk and [the Department of Government Efficiency] have already been found consistently to be acting outside of the law in their mass layoffs and agency closures by the courts,” said Rep. Yassamin Ansari, D-Ariz. “Now, instead of defending their own powers, congressional Republicans are pushing forward this bill to hand over their powers to the president.”  

Federal judges have found that many of Trump’s attempts to remove swaths of federal employees and eliminate agencies have been unlawful. 

In contrast, Republicans argued that the measure would upgrade federal programs and promote congressional authority. 

“Renewing the special reorganization authority requiring Congress to take an up or down vote on reorganization proposals by the president will help facilitate needed improvements in government operations,” said House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky. “It will also allow Congress to have a say in how government reorganization is carried out. That should be what we want here.” 

The GOP also emphasized that the administrations of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama all requested a renewal of presidential reorganization authority. 

Specifically, the bill would bring back such authority through Dec. 31, 2026. It also would remove a limitation on the authority that previously prevented presidents from using it to abolish or transfer an executive department or independent regulatory agency. 

Between 1932 and 1984, presidents submitted more than 100 plans under this authority, including the establishment of the EPA and Federal Emergency Management Agency. 

The panel also advanced by party-line the following bills that would affect federal employees: 

• The Protecting Taxpayers’ Wallets Act (HR 1210), which would charge government worker labor unions a quarterly fee for using agency resources. Congressional Republicans have long criticized official time, which is when union officials at agencies are still paid their government salary while working on representational matters instead of their normal duties. 
• The Preserving Presidential Management Authority Act of 2025 (HR 2249), which would authorize the president to terminate any provision of a federal employee collective bargaining agreement. The GOP has slammed a Social Security Administration collective bargaining agreement reached at the end of the Biden administration that locked in telework levels until 2029; although, the agency has largely suspended telework in an apparent violation of the contract.     
• The Paycheck Protection Act of 2025 (HR 2174), which would prohibit agencies and the U.S. Postal Service from deducting any amount from an employee’s pay for labor organization dues, fees or political contributions. 

“Taken together, these four bills would have a profoundly negative impact on federal workers and their ability to organize and have a voice in the workplace,” Daniel Horowitz, acting legislative director of the American Federation of Government Employees, wrote in a letter to committee leadership ahead of the markup. 

Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., offered amendments to the trio of federal labor relations bills that he said would exempt the National Border Patrol Council from their requirements. The committee rejected them, however, with members generally arguing that there should not be carveouts in the measures.

This story has been updated with the vote outcomes for each of the measures.