10th Amendment Restoration Act of 2025
HB2677, titled the “10th Amendment Restoration Act of 2025,” would create a new federal commission called the Constitutional Government Review Commission. The commission’s core task would be to review each federal agency and its statutory authority to determine whether any agency or delegated power is not definitively authorized by the Constitution, with the stated goal of identifying powers that should be reserved to the states or the people under the Tenth Amendment. The bill directs the commission to develop a public methodology for its reviews, hold public meetings, accept public submissions, and issue annual reports and a final report to Congress with recommendations for repeal of agency authorizing statutes and related statutory authority.
The bill also creates a fast-track process for Congress to consider any legislative text included in the commission’s reports. Those “commission bills” would receive expedited floor procedures in both chambers, with limited debate, no amendments, and mandatory consideration timelines. The commission would have subpoena power, access to agency information, authority to hire staff and experts, and a budget authorization of up to $30 million. It would terminate after roughly five years and 180 days, unless its timing is extended by the structure of member appointments.
In practical terms, the bill would not itself repeal any agency or statute. Instead, it would establish a mechanism to review federal agencies and recommend statutory repeals or reductions in federal authority, potentially affecting the scope of many federal programs and agencies if Congress later adopts the commission’s recommendations. It also contemplates recommendations for distributing any resulting federal savings among the states, which suggests a broader federalism-oriented restructuring rather than a single-subject policy change.
The available context shows no recorded committee debate or votes, so there is no documented legislative sentiment from hearings or floor action. Based on the bill text and title, the measure appears to be framed positively by its sponsors as a constitutional and states’-rights reform effort. The absence of transcripts or votes means there is no direct evidence of support or opposition in the provided materials, though the proposal’s broad review of federal agencies and expedited repeal process would likely be the main source of concern for critics.
The most notable point of contention is likely the bill’s premise that federal agencies should be reviewed for constitutional delegation and potentially repealed if their authority is not “definitively delegated.” Supporters would view this as a Tenth Amendment and limited-government measure; opponents would likely argue it is overly broad, could destabilize existing federal regulatory structures, and places major policy decisions in the hands of a commission with significant influence over Congress’s agenda. The commission’s composition, presidential appointment structure, subpoena authority, and fast-track legislative procedures are also likely to be debated as to whether they appropriately balance executive, legislative, and public input.
If enacted, HB2677 would add a new federal advisory/review body to the U.S. Code framework and create a formal process for scrutinizing the statutory basis of federal agencies and programs. It would not directly amend existing agency statutes, but it would establish a mechanism for recommending repeal of agency authorizing laws and related statutory authority, along with possible recommendations for distributing federal savings to states. The bill would also create special expedited procedures in Congress for considering any legislation drafted from the commission’s recommendations, affecting House and Senate rules for those measures.
No committee transcript or vote history is provided, so there is no recorded legislative sentiment beyond the bill’s text and title. The measure is clearly presented by its sponsors as a pro-federalism, Tenth Amendment restoration effort, suggesting supportive sentiment from its authors. At the same time, the breadth of the commission’s review authority and the expedited repeal process imply that the bill could draw skepticism from members concerned about weakening federal agencies or bypassing ordinary legislative procedures.
The main points of contention are likely to be the scope and consequences of the commission’s mandate. Supporters would favor a constitutional review of federal agencies and a mechanism to return powers to the states, while critics may object that the bill invites sweeping challenges to longstanding federal authority, creates uncertainty for agencies, and concentrates significant agenda-setting power in a commission. The presidential appointment process, the ability to recommend repeal of agency statutes, and the fast-track consideration rules for commission bills are also likely flashpoints because they could limit normal committee review, amendment opportunities, and broader deliberation.