Congress moves to weaken HHS procedural safeguards in rulemaking
H.J.Res. 125 — Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Office of the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services relating to "Policy on Adhering to the Text of the Administrative Procedure Act". · Filed by Lizzie Fletcher (D-TX) · Introduced Sep 18, 2025 · Referred to committee
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This joint resolution uses the Congressional Review Act to disapprove and nullify an HHS policy statement titled 'Policy on Adhering to the Text of the Administrative Procedure Act,' published March 3, 2025. The policy statement itself appears to have required HHS to follow the literal text of the Administrative Procedure Act in its rulemaking. Congress is voting to kill that policy, meaning HHS would no longer be bound by that requirement.
Why we flagged it
This is a procedural CRA disapproval under 5 U.S.C. § 801 et seq., designed to nullify an executive-branch policy statement. It does exactly one thing: invoke the fast-track disapproval mechanism to kill a specific HHS rule.
What the text implies
- The resolution targets an HHS policy requiring adherence to the literal text of the APA — a meta-rule about how HHS interprets procedural law. Disapproving it may allow HHS to adopt looser interpretations of APA requirements (e.g., in notice-and-comment scope, reasoned explanation, or arbitrary-and-capricious review).
- The GAO letter (Aug 27, 2025) classified the HHS policy as a 'rule' subject to CRA review, not mere guidance. This classification is itself contested terrain — if the policy were guidance, CRA would not apply. The resolution's success depends on that GAO determination holding.
The full analysis lists 3 implications of this text.
Who it affects
Disapproving a policy that mandated strict APA compliance potentially weakens procedural safeguards citizens rely on for notice, comment, and reasoned decision-making in federal rulemaking. However, the underlying policy's actual scope and effect are not detailed in this text, and the GAO's characterization of it as a 'rule' (rather than mere guidance) is contested — the resolution itself is a procedural instrument with no direct operational consequence until enacted.