A Republican bill with 1 Republican cosponsor · See the cosponsor
Last activity — Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 165.
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 Royalty Transparency Act requires various executive branch employees and advisory committee members to report specific royalties they receive. It expands financial disclosure requirements to include members of several public health and science advisory committees. The bill mandates that the Government Accountability Office publish a list of relevant advisory committees annually. Additionally, it requires agencies to publish reports on the internet regarding the names and royalty amounts of certain covered individuals. The Act also directs the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council and the Office of Management and Budget to address conflict of interest reviews regarding royalties for contractors or grantees.
Yes
- Scored +8
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
The bill mandates the public reporting of names and royalty amounts for certain executive branch employees and advisory committee members.
- Scored +1
Does this make health care easier to get in general?
The bill increases transparency regarding the financial interests of public health advisory committee members.
The opposite
- Scored -5
Does this protect people from being watched or searched?
The bill requires employees to disclose the source and amount of royalties received by their spouses and dependent children.
- Scored -2
Would high-income households be better off under this?
The bill imposes new financial disclosure and reporting requirements on high-earning government employees and committee members.
- Scored -1
Does this make it easier to run a small business?
The bill increases regulatory oversight and conflict of interest review requirements for prospective contractors and grantees.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Increased Transparency for Public Health Advice: By requiring members of specific advisory committees—such as the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and the National Vaccine Advisory Committee—to disclose royalties, the bill provides clarity on potential financial interests behind public health recommendations. (Section 2(a))
-
Enhanced Oversight of Financial Waivers: The bill requires that any exemptions or waivers granted regarding financial disclosures be immediately reported to specific Senate and House Committees, including a detailed justification. (Section 2(b))
-
Public Access to Financial Information: The Act mandates that agencies publish reports on their websites listing the names of covered individuals and the original source and amount of royalties received, allowing for greater public scrutiny of government employees' financial interests. (Section 2(c) and Section 2(e))
-
Prevention of Organizational Conflicts: The bill directs the updating of regulations to ensure that conflict of interest reviews for prospective contractors or grantees include reviews of royalties paid in the preceding calendar year, which helps mitigate potential organizational conflicts of interest. (Section 3(a))
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Increased Reporting Burdens for Employees: The bill introduces new requirements for various executive branch employees and advisory committee members to disclose the original source and value of royalties received by themselves, their spouses, or their dependent children. (Section 2(c) and Section 2(e))
-
Mandatory Disclosure of Private Financial Data: The requirement to report the specific amount and source of royalties received by a spouse or dependent child could be seen as an intrusion into the financial privacy of an employee's family. (Section 2(c))
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? — The bill mandates the public reporting of names and royalty amounts for certain executive branch employees and advisory committee members. Does this protect people from being watched or searched? — The bill requires employees to disclose the source and amount of royalties received by their spouses and dependent children.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would high-income households be better off under this? — The bill imposes new financial disclosure and reporting requirements on high-earning government employees and committee members.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make it easier to run a small business? — The bill increases regulatory oversight and conflict of interest review requirements for prospective contractors and grantees.
- Healthcare
- Does this make health care easier to get in general? — The bill increases transparency regarding the financial interests of public health advisory committee members.
- 9/17/2025
- Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Reported by Senator Paul with amendments. Without written report.
- Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 165.
- 7/30/2025
- Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
- 3/5/2025
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
- 1 Cosponsor 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.
Rick ScottRepublican · Florida