PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Bice, Stephanie I. [R-OK-5] · R–OK
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 16, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10250 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10250 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10250 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10250 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-09-03 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed bill would restrict how federal executive agencies, including the Defense Department, choose contractors. Agencies could not require or favor a bidder based on whether it would use workers covered by a collective bargaining agreement—an agreement negotiated with workers’ representatives about employment terms. This would affect agencies and businesses seeking federal contracts.
The head of an executive agency may not require or give preference to an offeror on the basis of whether the offeror will use workers subject to a collective bargaining agreement.
The Secretary of Defense may not require or give preference to an offeror for a contract on the basis of whether the offeror will use workers subject to a collective bargaining agreement.
Section 1 would name the bill the “No Preference Act.”
This Act may be cited as the No Preference Act.
Section 2 would add section 4715 to title 41 of federal law, prohibiting executive agency heads from imposing a requirement or giving a preference based on whether a bidder would use workers covered by a collective bargaining agreement. It would also add the new section to the chapter’s table of sections.
Chapter 47 of title 41, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section: 4715. Prohibition on requirement or preference for the use of union labor The head of an executive agency may not require or give preference to an offeror on the basis of whether the offeror will use workers subject to a collective bargaining agreement.
The table of sections for chapter 47 of title 41, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item: Sec. 4715. Prohibition on requirement or preference for the use of union labor.
Section 3 would add section 3345 to title 10 of federal law and impose the corresponding prohibition on the Secretary of Defense. Despite its heading, “Requirement to use union labor,” the operative text would prohibit a requirement or preference based on whether a bidder would use workers covered by a collective bargaining agreement.
Chapter 243 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: 3345. Requirement to use union labor The Secretary of Defense may not require or give preference to an offeror for a contract on the basis of whether the offeror will use workers subject to a collective bargaining agreement.
The supplied actions snapshot, updated September 16, 2026, records introduction in the House on September 3, 2026, and referral that day to the Committees on Oversight and Government Reform and Armed Services, each for provisions within its jurisdiction.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-16T08:09:27Z.
2026-09-03: Introduced in House
2026-09-03: Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-09-03. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy rider was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; accompanying earmark disclosures and committee materials were not supplied.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow carve-out, special exemption, or preferential treatment was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 16, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI