Latest action: Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Referred to one or more standing committees for review, hearings, and possible markup.
Specific committees not parsed from action data.
The committee may hold hearings, amend the bill, or let it die without action.
Next: Reported
Full chamber floor — Speaker / Majority Leader controls scheduling
Limits the number of appointed positions the president can create without approval.
The problem
Presidents may appoint many officials without Senate approval. Some worry this gives executives too much unchecked power over government operations and spending.
The proposal
The bill caps how many appointed positions any president can fill. It requires approval for creating new appointed roles beyond a set limit.
The impact
Presidents, federal agencies, and Congress are affected. It reduces executive flexibility in staffing but increases legislative oversight of appointments.
The bill gives Congress more say in how the executive branch is staffed. This creates more checks and balances between branches of government.
Fewer appointed positions means fewer unelected people making government decisions. This can increase accountability since voters cannot directly control appointees.
Capping positions may reduce unnecessary government bureaucracy and spending. Agencies might operate more efficiently with fewer redundant roles.
A cap creates consistency across administrations rather than constant expansion. This allows planning and prevents sudden hiring surges.
Presidents need to staff agencies quickly during emergencies or crises. A hard cap prevents responsive action when new threats or problems arise.
Agencies need staffing suited to their workload. Artificial caps may force agencies to operate understaffed and less effectively.
Requiring Congressional approval for more positions adds delays and bureaucracy. This could leave important jobs unfilled for longer periods.
If Congress and the president disagree on staffing needs, appointments could stall. Political opposition could be used to block necessary staff additions.
Generated by AI from the bill text. Not a prediction and not legal or policy advice. The percentage is the model's own rating of each item — self-reported, and not a measure of how accurate it is.
Loading map…
Loading...
0 citizens have already voted
Free · No spam · See how your representatives voted
Be the first to weigh in
Your vote starts the conversation
How citizen engagement works
Citizens vote & comment
Public opinion data is aggregated and updated in real time.
Patterns become visible
Representatives can see constituent sentiment broken down by district.
Your voice on the record
Contact your rep directly — one constituent call can shift a staffer's priority list.
Research shows that constituent contacts — especially calls — are among the most effective ways to influence a legislator's position on active bills.
Other bills in this policy area
SRES 929
A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate regarding equity stakes held by the Federal Government in private companies.
HR 5235
Skills-Based Federal Contracting Act of 2025
HR 2332
SHARE Act of 2026
HR 9191
National Fossil Act of 2026
Individual contributions, grouped by employer · FEC
No donor data found for current cycle
Itemized individual contributions via FEC, grouped by the employer each contributor self-reported. Companies and unions cannot contribute to federal candidates from their treasuries, so these totals are money from people who work at an employer — never from the organization itself. They are campaign contributions covering a full election cycle and are not connected to this bill.
Senate LDA lobbying disclosures
Couldn't load lobbying disclosures right now.