A Republican bill with no cosponsors
Last activity — Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 208.
Cleared committee, waiting for its first floor vote
A committee approved it and it is on the calendar of the chamber it started in.
This is further than most bills get, and still no promise of a vote: the calendar is a queue, and the majority leadership decides what is called. A bill can sit here until the Congress ends.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- On Calendar
What this bill would do
The SAFE Guidance Act requires heads of specific financial agencies to include a guidance clarity statement on certain documents. This statement must be displayed prominently on the first page of any guidance issued on or after the Act's enactment. The statement clarifies that the guidance does not have the force of law and does not establish rights or obligations. It also notes that noncompliance with the guidance does not conclusively establish a violation of law. The act defines several financial agencies and clarifies what constitutes guidance.
Yes· 3 of 4
- Scored +3
Would business owners be better off under this?
Business owners benefit from heightened legal certainty regarding the non-binding nature of agency guidance.
- Scored +3
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
The mandate increases transparency by requiring clear disclosure on the legal status of agency guidance.
- Scored +2
Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts?
Provides due process clarity by ensuring regulated parties understand that guidance is not legally binding.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Does this give the federal government more power?
By limiting the weight of agency guidance, the bill reduces the unilateral regulatory power of federal agencies.
- Scored -2
Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices?
By clarifying that guidance is non-binding, it may slightly weaken the perceived weight of consumer protection guidance issued by agencies.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Clarification of Legal Standing: The bill requires a statement explaining that guidance does not have the force and effect of law, which means it does not establish rights or obligations for any person (Section 2(b)).
-
Protection Against Misinterpretation of Noncompliance: The mandatory statement clarifies that if guidance suggests how to comply with statutes or regulations, failing to follow that guidance does not conclusively prove a violation of the law (Section 2(b)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No negative impacts are explicitly stated 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.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would business owners be better off under this? — Business owners benefit from heightened legal certainty regarding the non-binding nature of agency guidance.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The mandate increases transparency by requiring clear disclosure on the legal status of agency guidance. Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — Provides due process clarity by ensuring regulated parties understand that guidance is not legally binding. Does this give the federal government more power? — By limiting the weight of agency guidance, the bill reduces the unilateral regulatory power of federal agencies.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make it easier to run a small business? — The bill provides legal clarity for regulated entities, potentially reducing the risks associated with following non-binding agency guidance. Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — By clarifying that guidance is non-binding, it may slightly weaken the perceived weight of consumer protection guidance issued by agencies.
- 9/8/2025
- Reported by the Committee on Financial Services. H. Rept. 119-251.
- Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 208.
- 7/23/2025
- Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 26 - 23.
- 7/22/2025
- Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- 7/16/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
- Introduced in House
2 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.