Jim Banks (R-IN)
Beautifying Federal Civic Architecture Act of 2025
A Republican bill with 5 Republican cosponsors · See all 5 cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
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 Beautifying Federal Civic Architecture Act of 2025 establishes guiding principles for the design of certain Federal public buildings. It prioritizes classical and traditional architectural styles to ensure buildings are beautified and reflect the dignity and stability of the U.S. government. The act requires the General Services Administration to update its policies and employ staff with expertise in these preferred styles. It also emphasizes community input and the incorporation of regional architectural heritage. Certain high-cost buildings, courthouses, and agency headquarters are subject to these rules.
Yes· 3 of 8
- Scored +3
Would people with disabilities be better off under this?
The bill mandates that all applicable Federal public buildings be accessible to the handicapped.
- Scored +2
Would business owners be better off under this?
Increased spending on architecture and art may benefit specialized architectural firms and artists.
- Scored +2
Would people in cities be better off under this?
Focuses on beautifying public spaces in urban centers and the National Capital region.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Does this reduce what the federal government owes?
The bill explicitly allows for additional costs to avoid uniformity in design, potentially increasing government spending.
- Scored -2
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
The requirement to pay additional costs for specific architectural styles likely increases expenditure.
- Scored -2
Does this make the government pay for what it commits to?
Allowing for higher costs to achieve aesthetic preferences over cost-efficiency reduces fiscal rigor.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Community Influence: The bill states that designs for applicable Federal public buildings should be selected with substantial input from the local community (Section 2).
- Regional Respect: Federal agencies are encouraged to incorporate qualities that reflect the regional architectural traditions of the area where the building is located (Section 4).
- Support for American Artists: The act emphasizes incorporating fine art into designs, specifically focusing on the work of living American artists (Section 4).
- Accessibility: The guiding principles require that applicable Federal public buildings be accessible to the handicapped (Section 4).
- Public Space Enhancement: The policy aims for Federal public buildings to uplift and beautify public spaces and inspire the human spirit (Section 2).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Increased Costs: The bill explicitly states that Federal agencies should be willing to pay additional costs to avoid excessive uniformity in building designs (Section 4).
- Limited Architectural Variety: By establishing classical and traditional architecture as the preferred and default styles, other architectural styles may be discouraged or require special justification (Section 2 and Section 4).
- Restrictive Expert Requirements: The act requires GSA architects and the Senior Advisor for Architectural Design to have specific training or experience in classical or traditional architecture, which may limit the diversity of professional expertise used in Federal projects (Section 5).
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 people with disabilities be better off under this? — The bill mandates that all applicable Federal public buildings be accessible to the handicapped. Would business owners be better off under this? — Increased spending on architecture and art may benefit specialized architectural firms and artists. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Focuses on beautifying public spaces in urban centers and the National Capital region. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Encourages the use of regional architectural traditions in building designs.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to create jobs? — Increased spending on specialized architectural designs and fine art may create opportunities for specific professionals. Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — Allowing for higher costs to achieve aesthetic preferences over cost-efficiency reduces fiscal rigor. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — The requirement to pay additional costs for specific architectural styles likely increases expenditure. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — The bill explicitly allows for additional costs to avoid uniformity in design, potentially increasing government spending.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this expand the rights of people with disabilities? — The bill explicitly mandates that applicable Federal public buildings be accessible to the handicapped.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this invest in rural communities? — Encourages regional architectural heritage which can support local traditions in rural areas.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this leave more decisions to the states? — Requires cooperation with state and local agencies for building site development.
- 9/9/2025
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 9/4/2025
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
- 3 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in Senate
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.
Marsha BlackburnRepublican · Tennessee
Bill HagertyRepublican · Tennessee
Cindy Hyde-SmithRepublican · Mississippi
Mike LeeRepublican · Utah
Roger MarshallRepublican · Kansas