Constitutional amendment would let states veto federal borrowing, trigger automatic spending cuts

What it does

This proposed constitutional amendment would require the federal government to balance its budget unless borrowing is approved, cap total federal debt at 105% of current levels unless states approve increases by simple majority, and require the President to cut spending automatically if debt approaches the limit. It also mandates a two-thirds vote in Congress to raise income taxes, though a national sales tax replacing all income taxes would only need a simple majority.

Why we flagged it

The bill proposes a structural constitutional change to enforce balanced budgets and debt limits through automatic spending cuts and supermajority tax requirements. It is fundamentally a fiscal-governance mechanism, not a substantive policy change.

What the text implies

• Automatic spending cuts (impoundment) triggered at 98% of debt limit would bypass normal congressional appropriations process, concentrating power in the executive branch to unilaterally decide which programs are cut.
• State-legislature approval of debt increases creates a veto point outside federal democratic processes; rural/conservative states could block federal borrowing for urban infrastructure, healthcare, or defense regardless of national need.
• Two-thirds tax requirement makes it nearly impossible to raise revenue during recessions or crises when borrowing is constrained, forcing immediate spending cuts rather than counter-cyclical fiscal policy.
• Sales-tax carve-out (simple majority for national sales tax replacing income tax) is a hidden pathway to regressive taxation; it appears neutral but mathematically favors wealthy households that consume less of their income.
• Self-enforcing mechanism with no legislative override except concurrent resolution means courts would likely be drawn into debt-limit disputes, politicizing the judiciary.

Who it affects

Ordinary citizens would face automatic spending cuts to Social Security, Medicare, defense, and other programs whenever debt approaches the cap, with no democratic input into which programs are cut. The two-thirds tax requirement makes it harder to fund public services or adjust taxes progressively, while the sales-tax carve-out favors consumption-based taxation that disproportionately burdens lower-income households.

Who stands to gain

• high-income households (reduced progressive taxation)
• consumption-tax advocates
• fiscal-constraint advocacy groups

Named in the bill

U.S. House of Representatives, House Committee on the Judiciary, Congress, President, State legislatures, Mr. Burlison (sponsor)

Where it stands

• Aug 15, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• Aug 15, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on the Judiciary · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.

Money around this bill

1 lobbying clients named this bill on 2 disclosure filings across 2 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $690,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 69 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.

More lobbying clients named this bill than 0% of bills with at least one filing.

Eric Burlison, the sponsor, reported $292,530 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.

• National Treasury Employees Union — $690,000 on 2 filings

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.