US Federal House Bill HB2006

US Federal 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/10/25
• Refer: 3/10/25

Caption

DOGE Act

Summary

HB2006, titled the Department of Government Efficiency Act or the DOGE Act, would codify Executive Order 14210 into federal law. The bill is very short and does not create a new program or set out detailed implementation rules; instead, it gives the executive order “the force and effect of law.” The executive order it references concerns the President’s Department of Government Efficiency workforce optimization initiative, indicating the bill is intended to make that workforce-restructuring directive legally binding rather than merely an executive action. In practical terms, the bill would affect federal workforce management and any agencies subject to the executive order’s optimization initiative. By codifying the order, it would strengthen the legal status of the administration’s efficiency and staffing directives and could influence how federal departments organize personnel, reduce duplication, or implement workforce changes. Because the bill does not itself spell out operational details, its legal effect would largely depend on the contents of Executive Order 14210 and how agencies interpret and apply it.

Impact

The bill would amend federal law only by incorporating Executive Order 14210 into statute, thereby elevating the order from an executive directive to a law with binding legal force. Its main impact would be on federal agencies and employees affected by the Department of Government Efficiency workforce optimization initiative, potentially shaping hiring, staffing, reorganization, and efficiency measures across the executive branch. It does not identify specific U.S. Code provisions to be amended, but it would likely affect administrative law and federal personnel policy by making the executive order harder to reverse administratively.

Sentiment

There is limited recorded legislative sentiment available because there are no committee transcripts or votes in the provided context. Based on the bill’s sponsorship and title, the measure appears to be supported by members aligned with the administration’s efficiency agenda and skeptical of federal bureaucracy. The absence of recorded debate or vote history means there is no documented bipartisan consensus or formal opposition in the materials provided.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely to be whether Congress should codify a presidential executive order that reorganizes or streamlines the federal workforce. Supporters would likely view the bill as a way to lock in government efficiency reforms and reduce bureaucracy, while opponents may argue it concentrates too much authority in the executive branch, could undermine civil service protections, or lacks sufficient detail and oversight. No specific objections are recorded in the provided materials, but those are the most likely fault lines given the bill’s purpose.