Budget Reform Act of 2025
SB 2090, the Budget Reform Act of 2025, would make broad changes to the federal budget process. The bill directs the Congressional Budget Office to publish its models, data-preparation routines, assumptions, and other computational details so that estimates can be replicated, subject to limits on nondisclosure-protected data. It also requires the President to submit zero-based budget materials for each department and agency, including descriptions of activities, legal authority, alternative funding levels, priorities at each level, and measures of efficiency and effectiveness, while excluding Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid from those zero-based submissions.
The bill would shift the federal budget cycle from annual to biennial budgeting and appropriations beginning with the fiscal year 2028 biennium. It revises the Congressional Budget Act and related title 31 provisions to create a two-year budget resolution, two-year appropriations bills, biennial authorizations, updated deadlines for budget submission and committee action, and corresponding changes to reconciliation, points of order, and budget justifications. It also changes the baseline rules used for budget scoring and removes inflation adjustments from baseline projections.
In addition to process reforms, the bill adds compliance mechanisms tied to late budget submission or missed budget deadlines. These include restrictions on federal funding for official travel by certain political employees and by the President if the President’s budget is late, and a policy that the President may not be invited to address a joint session of Congress until both the National Security Strategy and the President’s Budget Request have been transmitted. The bill also bars travel by Members of Congress if either chamber or Congress as a whole misses the applicable budget deadline.
The bill would also tighten Senate budget enforcement by raising the threshold to waive certain budget-related points of order and by creating a narrower point of order aimed at legislation within the Senate Budget Committee’s jurisdiction unless it originates from that committee or is directly related to such a measure. Overall, the measure would substantially alter how Congress and the executive branch prepare, consider, and enforce the federal budget, while leaving entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security outside the zero-based budgeting requirement.
There is no recorded committee debate or vote history in the provided materials, so the available context does not show support or opposition from members. Based on the text alone, the bill appears designed to appeal to budget-process reform advocates by emphasizing transparency, discipline, and biennial planning, while likely drawing scrutiny from those concerned about reduced flexibility, stricter enforcement rules, and the practical complexity of moving to a two-year budget system.
The bill would amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, title 31 of the U.S. Code, the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, and related budget procedures to create a biennial federal budgeting framework. It would require new CBO disclosure practices, impose zero-based budgeting requirements on executive agencies, revise budget resolution and appropriations timetables, alter baseline calculations, and add new Senate enforcement rules and travel-related compliance restrictions. Its practical effect would be to change the timing, content, and procedural enforcement of federal budget submissions and appropriations for Congress, the President, OMB, CBO, and federal agencies, beginning generally with the fiscal year 2028 biennium.
No committee transcripts or votes were provided, so there is no recorded legislative sentiment to summarize from debate or roll call history. From the bill text, the measure reflects a reform-oriented, process-focused approach that emphasizes transparency, accountability, and stricter budget discipline. The absence of recorded opposition or support in the provided materials means the overall sentiment cannot be measured beyond the bill’s apparent policy intent.
The most likely points of contention are the shift from annual to biennial budgeting, the zero-based budgeting mandate, and the new enforcement mechanisms tied to missed deadlines and late presidential budget submissions. Critics may object that biennial appropriations and stricter points of order could reduce congressional flexibility, complicate responses to changing fiscal conditions, and increase procedural rigidity. The bill’s travel restrictions on Members of Congress and political appointees, as well as the requirement that the President’s budget and National Security Strategy precede a joint session address, may also be seen as punitive or symbolic rather than operational. Supporters would likely favor the transparency provisions for CBO and the effort to force more detailed justification of spending, while opponents may focus on the administrative burden and the exclusion of major entitlement programs from the zero-based requirement.