Executive Action Cost Transparency Act

Bill Number

H.R. 6569

Origin Chamber

House

Congress

119th Congress, Session 1

Policy Area

Economics and Public Finance

Status

Introduced

Latest Action

2025-12-10: Referred to the House Committee on the Budget.

Last Updated

2026-01-07T17:01:32Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose

The Executive Action Cost Transparency Act (H.R. 6569) aims to increase transparency in federal budgeting by requiring the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to incorporate the financial impacts of certain executive and judicial actions into its baseline budget calculations and reports. This helps Congress better understand how these actions affect the federal budget.

Key Provisions

• Inclusion in CBO Baselines: Unless instructed otherwise by the chairs of the House and Senate Budget Committees, all CBO baseline calculations and updates must account for the budgetary effects (such as costs or savings) of:
• Judicial actions (e.g., court rulings with financial implications).
• Executive actions (e.g., proposed or final rules, executive orders, or memoranda issued by the President or agencies).

These effects are determined using agreed-upon "scorekeeping" methods (standard practices for estimating budget impacts) between the CBO Director and the Budget Committees.

• Documentation Requirement for Executive Actions: Within 10 days after an executive action takes effect, the issuing federal department, agency, or commission must provide the CBO with:
• All related written documents on implementation.
• Guidance for those affected (e.g., instructions for government staff, other entities, or private parties).
• Any other relevant data needed for CBO analysis.
• Reporting in CBO Updates: CBO budget reports must include a separate table listing significant executive or judicial actions issued since the last report. This applies to actions with estimated budgetary effects of at least $50 billion over the current fiscal year, the upcoming budget year, and the following nine years. Proposed executive actions are treated as final for deciding inclusion, following scorekeeping guidelines.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

• Amends Section 257 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (which governs CBO baseline rules) by adding a new subsection (f) to mandate inclusion of executive and judicial actions in baselines.
• Amends Section 202(e)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (which requires CBO to report budget updates) by requiring a new dedicated table for high-impact actions, enhancing the detail and timeliness of budget reporting.

These changes expand the scope of what CBO must consider beyond traditional congressional legislation to include non-legislative government actions.

Potential Impacts

• On Government Agencies: Executive branch agencies face new administrative burdens to quickly document and share information with the CBO, potentially slowing implementation of rules or orders while ensuring fiscal accountability.
• On Citizens: Increases public transparency about how executive and judicial decisions affect federal spending and deficits, allowing better-informed oversight of government actions without direct changes to individual rights or taxes.
• On Congress: Provides Congress with more comprehensive budget data, improving its ability to evaluate and respond to executive actions during budget debates.
• On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though it could indirectly affect U.S. foreign policy if executive actions (e.g., trade rules or aid orders) with international budgetary effects are more closely scrutinized.

Main Stakeholders Affected

• Congressional Budget Office (CBO): Responsible for analyzing and reporting on these actions, increasing its workload but improving the accuracy of its projections.
• House and Senate Budget Committees: Gain authority to direct exclusions and benefit from enhanced data for legislative decisions.
• Executive Branch Agencies and Departments: Must comply with rapid documentation requirements, affecting operations across regulatory bodies like the Environmental Protection Agency or Department of Justice.
• Judiciary: Court decisions with major budget implications (e.g., rulings on spending programs) will be tracked, though no new obligations are placed on courts themselves.
• General Public and Advocacy Groups: Indirectly affected through greater visibility into how government actions influence national finances.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

• Legal Implications: Strengthens existing budget laws by closing a gap in tracking non-legislative actions, ensuring CBO estimates align with real-world fiscal effects without altering separation of powers—executive and judicial branches retain their authority to act.
• Constitutional Implications: Supports Congress's constitutional role in controlling the "power of the purse" (Article I, Section 9) by enhancing oversight of executive spending impacts, potentially reducing unchecked executive influence on the budget.
• Political Implications: Could serve as a tool for congressional accountability of the executive branch, especially during divided government, by spotlighting costly actions in public reports; the $50 billion threshold focuses scrutiny on major initiatives while avoiding overload from minor ones. No provisions raise free speech or due process concerns.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Rep. Estes, Ron [R-KS-4]

Recent Actions

• 2025-12-10: Referred to the House Committee on the Budget.
• 2025-12-10: Introduced in House
• 2025-12-10: Introduced in House

Bill Versions

• Executive Action Cost Transparency Act — issued 2025-12-10 — PDF (4 pages)