New York Assembly Bill A07756

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/8/25
• Refer: 4/8/25
• Refer: 1/7/26

Caption

Relates to contingency planning by state agencies for extended federal government shutdowns; requires the secretary to oversee development of shutdown contingency plans.

Summary

This bill would require New York state agencies to prepare for extended federal government shutdowns by developing formal contingency plans. It defines an “extended federal shutdown” as one lasting two weeks or more and directs the Secretary of State to oversee a statewide planning process. Each agency that may be affected by a shutdown, or that may help mitigate its effects, would be asked to submit a draft plan identifying impacted programs, federally funded positions, and possible mitigation steps. The required plans would also address how agencies would resume normal operations after a shutdown ends. The bill allows the Secretary of State to review submissions, request additional information, approve plans, or require revisions if deficiencies are found. Agencies would need to update their plans as needed, keep current versions on their websites, and the Department of State would have to maintain a public webpage linking to each agency’s plan and explaining the planning process.

Impact

The bill amends the Executive Law by adding a new section 94-e, creating a formal state-level framework for federal shutdown preparedness. It would not itself mandate that agencies take every action listed in their plans, but it would require them to identify potential impacts, mitigation options, and restart procedures, and to keep those plans current and publicly accessible. The Secretary of State would gain oversight authority over the process, with consultation required from the Director of the Budget before any action with fiscal or budgetary implications. The measure could affect a broad range of state agencies, public authorities, and public benefit corporations, but excludes the judiciary, Legislature, local governments, and district attorneys’ offices.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears to be preventive and administrative rather than controversial. The sponsor’s findings frame the bill as a practical response to increasingly frequent federal shutdowns and their effects on workers, businesses, and public services. The bill is presented as a coordination and preparedness measure intended to help the state respond more effectively to disruptions in federal funding and operations.

Contention

The main potential points of contention are administrative burden, state oversight, and the scope of agency obligations. Agencies would need to prepare, update, and publicly post contingency plans, which could require staff time and coordination across many parts of state government. Another possible issue is the Secretary of State’s role in reviewing and approving plans, especially where proposed actions have fiscal implications and require consultation with the Director of the Budget. The bill also leaves agencies discretion not to undertake every action identified in a plan, which may reduce mandates but could raise questions about how effective or enforceable the planning process would be.