PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Larson, John B. [D-CT-1] · D–CT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
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: Jul 3, 2025. 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.1321 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.1321 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.1321 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.1321 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 · 2025-02-13 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 Ending DOGE Conflicts Act would require special Government employees who own a federal contractor, are its controlling shareholder, or serve as its chief executive officer to follow specified financial-disclosure rules. Covered employees could not perform any federal job duties until their initial disclosure report was certified as compliant. The requirements would begin upon enactment.
This Act may be cited as the Ending DOGE Conflicts Act.
Upon the date of the enactment of this Act, any special Government employee (as that term is defined in section 202 of title 18, United States Code) who is the owner, controlling shareholder, or chief executive officer of a company contracted with the Federal Government shall, in addition to the officers and employees described under section 13103(f) of title 5, United States Code, be subject to the requirements of subchapter I of chapter 131 of such title (relating to financial disclosures).
Until the date on which the initial report required under subchapter I of chapter 131 of title 5, United States Code, has been certified as compliant pursuant to subsection (b), a special Government employee described in subsection (a) is prohibited from carrying out any official duties relating to employment with the Federal Government.
Starting on enactment, the bill would extend existing federal financial-disclosure requirements to the specified special Government employees, in addition to the officers and employees already covered by the cited law. It uses an existing statutory definition of “special Government employee”; that definition and the detailed disclosure rules are not reproduced in the bill.
Upon the date of the enactment of this Act, any special Government employee (as that term is defined in section 202 of title 18, United States Code) who is the owner, controlling shareholder, or chief executive officer of a company contracted with the Federal Government shall, in addition to the officers and employees described under section 13103(f) of title 5, United States Code, be subject to the requirements of subchapter I of chapter 131 of such title (relating to financial disclosures).
The bill would direct covered employees’ reporting requirements to the Director of the Office of Government Ethics, the official responsible under the proposal for reviewing and certifying their reports.
For purposes of section 13108 of title 5, United States Code, any reporting requirement incumbent upon a special Government employee described in subsection (a) shall be transmitted to the Director of the Office of Government Ethics, who shall be responsible for the review and certification of such report.
A covered employee would be barred from all official federal employment duties until the Director certified the initial disclosure report as compliant. The restriction would cover all such duties, including duties unrelated to the employee’s company; certification, rather than a fixed waiting period, would end it.
Until the date on which the initial report required under subchapter I of chapter 131 of title 5, United States Code, has been certified as compliant pursuant to subsection (b), a special Government employee described in subsection (a) is prohibited from carrying out any official duties relating to employment with the Federal Government.
the Director of the Office of Government Ethics, who shall be responsible for the review and certification of such report.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated July 3, 2025, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on February 13, 2025.
Source snapshot updated 2025-07-03T14:55:27Z. 2025-02-13: Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. 2025-02-13: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-13. 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 change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not extend to 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 does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No narrow preferential benefit, special exemption, or carve-out was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not extend to other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Jul 3, 2025. How PlainBill uses AI