No Mandates Act
- Bill Number
- H.R. 120
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Health
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-01-03: Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committees on House Administration, and Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- Last Updated
- 2025-06-24T08:05:16Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose of the Legislation
The "No Mandates Act" (H.R. 120) aims to ban federal requirements for COVID-19 vaccinations, preventing government agencies and federally funded entities from mandating or requiring proof of vaccination as a condition for access to services, property, or benefits.
Key Provisions
- Prohibition on Agency Mandates (Section 2): Federal agencies are barred from issuing any rules, regulations, or guidance that require individuals to receive a COVID-19 vaccination. "Agency" is defined as any executive branch department or independent agency under U.S. law (referencing 5 U.S.C. § 551).
- Ban on Proof of Vaccination for Federal Access (Section 3): COVID-19 vaccination cannot be required for entry to or use of federal property, services, congressional grounds, or related services.
- Federal Funding Restrictions (Section 4):
- Entities that received federal COVID-19 relief funds or any other federal funds after the bill's enactment cannot require COVID-19 vaccination as a condition for providing services to individuals.
- Non-compliant entities must repay the full amount of federal funds received.
- "COVID-19 relief package" specifically includes major laws like the CARES Act (2020), Families First Coronavirus Response Act (2020), and American Rescue Plan Act (2021).
Significant Changes to Existing Law
This bill would eliminate or override any prior federal policies, executive orders, or agency rules (such as those from the Biden administration in 2021) that allowed or imposed COVID-19 vaccination requirements for federal workers, contractors, or beneficiaries. It introduces new penalties, like fund repayment, which were not previously mandated for vaccine-related non-compliance, shifting authority away from agencies toward a blanket prohibition.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: Federal departments (e.g., Health and Human Services, Defense) would lose the ability to enforce vaccine requirements, potentially simplifying operations but limiting public health tools during outbreaks.
- On Citizens: Individuals would gain unrestricted access to federal services, property, and congressional facilities without needing to show vaccination status, enhancing personal choice but possibly increasing health risks in shared spaces.
- On Funded Entities: Schools, hospitals, businesses, and nonprofits receiving federal aid (especially COVID relief) could face financial penalties for enforcing vaccine rules, leading to policy changes or reduced federal funding reliance.
- On International Relations: No direct impacts are outlined, though it could indirectly affect U.S. coordination with global health organizations like the WHO on vaccination efforts.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Federal Agencies and Employees: Agencies like the CDC and VA would be directly restricted; employees might see changes in workplace policies.
- Individuals and the Public: Everyday citizens, particularly those interacting with federal services or funded programs (e.g., Medicare recipients, students in public schools).
- Funded Entities: Healthcare providers, educational institutions, contractors, and businesses that received COVID-19 relief funds, who may need to revise service conditions to avoid repayment demands.
- Congress: Explicitly protected from imposing vaccine requirements on its grounds or services.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal Implications: The bill enforces a strict prohibition via funding conditions, which could lead to enforcement challenges or lawsuits over what constitutes a "mandate" (e.g., incentives vs. requirements). It relies on Congress's spending power to influence private entities, a common but contested tool in U.S. law.
- Constitutional Implications: Balances individual rights (e.g., bodily autonomy under the 14th Amendment) against government public health authority (e.g., under the Commerce Clause), potentially inviting Supreme Court review if seen as overreach or under-protection of health.
- Political Implications: Reinforces debates on federal vs. state powers and personal freedoms vs. collective safety, likely polarizing along partisan lines without altering broader vaccine development or distribution laws.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Recent Actions
- 2025-01-03: Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committees on House Administration, and Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- 2025-01-03: Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committees on House Administration, and Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- 2025-01-03: Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committees on House Administration, and Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- 2025-01-03: Introduced in House
- 2025-01-03: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- No Mandates Act — issued 2025-01-03 — PDF (3 pages)