Maxine Waters (D-CA)
Reduction in Force Review Act
A Democratic bill with 15 Democratic cosponsors · See all 15 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Rules, 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.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The "Reduction in Force Review Act" amends title 5 of the United States Code to ensure rules regarding reductions in force are subject to review under chapter 8. It requires federal agencies to provide a detailed justification for such reductions, including reasons, impacts, and alternatives considered. It also requires summaries of consultations with affected employees and their representatives. Additionally, agencies must summarize how the reduction in force will impact veteran employees. The bill expands the definition of a "rule" to include workforce restructuring and office closures.
Yes· 3 of 5
- Scored +7
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
Requires agencies to provide detailed justifications and summaries of consultations for workforce reductions.
- Scored +6
Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together?
Explicitly requires an analysis of how reductions in force will specifically impact veteran employees.
- Scored +5
Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts?
Provides more structured review and justification requirements for administrative actions affecting federal employment.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Increased Accountability for Job Cuts: Section 2(1)(A)(iv) requires agencies to provide specific reasons for a reduction in force and explain why alternatives were rejected, which forces officials to justify their decisions.
-
Transparency for Affected Workers: Section 2(1)(A)(iv)(IV) requires a summary of consultations with affected employees and their representatives, ensuring workers are part of the conversation.
-
Protection for Veterans: Section 2(1)(A)(iv)(V) requires a summary of how the reduction in force will specifically impact employees who are veterans.
-
Broader Oversight: Section 2(2)(B) expands the scope of review to include "workforce restructuring" and "office closure," providing oversight for actions that materially impact employees or operations.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- There are no specific negative impacts for individuals explicitly listed in the provided text.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Requires agencies to provide detailed justifications and summaries of consultations for workforce reductions. Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — Provides more structured review and justification requirements for administrative actions affecting federal employment.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Explicitly requires an analysis of how reductions in force will specifically impact veteran employees. Would union members be better off under this? — Enhances transparency and consultation requirements for federal employees and their representatives during layoffs.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this strengthen the rights of workers to organise? — Requires summaries of consultations with employee representatives, which typically includes unions, during reduction in force actions.
- 11/7/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 8/5/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/24/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 5/9/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 5/8/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 5/7/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 5/1/2025
- Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Rules, 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.
- 9 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Suzanne BonamiciDemocrat · Oregon
Julia BrownleyDemocrat · California
Nanette BarragánDemocrat · California
Gerald ConnollyDemocrat · Virginia
Angie CraigDemocrat · Minnesota
Maxwell FrostDemocrat · Florida
John GaramendiDemocrat · California
Jahana HayesDemocrat · Connecticut
Greg LandsmanDemocrat · Ohio
Doris MatsuiDemocrat · California
LaMonica McIverDemocrat · New Jersey
Eleanor NortonDemocrat · District of Columbia
Alexandria Ocasio-CortezDemocrat · New York
Rashida TlaibDemocrat · Michigan
Jill TokudaDemocrat · Hawaii