PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, 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. Beyer, Donald S. [D-VA-8] · D–VA
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 the Judiciary, 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 the Judiciary, 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: May 13, 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.1591 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.1591 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.1591 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.1591 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 · 2025-02-26 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 Security Clearance Review Act would set conditions for political appointees and special Government employees working in the Executive Office of the President. Their employment would have to be clearly consistent with national security, and the FBI Director would have to approve their security clearances or access to classified information. The President would have to explain to Congress any decision to override or disregard the Director’s denial, suspension, or revocation.
This Act may be cited as the Security Clearance Review Act.
(A) a political appointee or special Government employee may not be employed in, detailed to, or assigned to, the Executive Office of the President unless such employment, detail, or assignment is clearly consistent with national security; and (B) any political appointee or special Government employee employed in, detailed to, or assigned to, the Executive Office of the President may not have a security clearance, or access any classified information, unless such security clearance is granted, or access determination is made, by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
If the President nullifies, reverses, modifies, or otherwise fails to recognize any denial, suspension, or revocation of a security clearance or access to classified information determination made by the Director under paragraph (1), not later than 30 days thereafter, the President shall submit an explanation (in writing) of the reasons for such nullification, reversal, modification, or failure to recognize to the appropriate committees of Congress.
Section 2 would add these requirements to section 3001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. Regardless of other laws, covered employees could work in, be temporarily detailed to, or be assigned to the Executive Office of the President only if that placement were clearly consistent with national security.
Section 3001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (50 U.S.C. 3341) is amended by adding at the end the following:
(1) Appointment and access to classified information Notwithstanding any other provision of law— (A) a political appointee or special Government employee may not be employed in, detailed to, or assigned to, the Executive Office of the President unless such employment, detail, or assignment is clearly consistent with national security;
Regardless of other laws, covered employees in the Executive Office of the President could hold a security clearance or access classified information only if the FBI Director granted the clearance or made the access determination.
(1) Appointment and access to classified information Notwithstanding any other provision of law—
(B) any political appointee or special Government employee employed in, detailed to, or assigned to, the Executive Office of the President may not have a security clearance, or access any classified information, unless such security clearance is granted, or access determination is made, by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
If the FBI Director denied, suspended, or revoked a covered clearance or access to classified information, the Director would have to notify the President and the appropriate congressional committees that same day.
If the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation denies, suspends, or revokes a security clearance or access to classified information under paragraph (1), the Director shall notify the President and the appropriate committees of Congress of such determination on the date such determination is made.
If the President canceled, reversed, changed, or otherwise disregarded the Director’s denial, suspension, or revocation, the President would have to send the appropriate congressional committees a written explanation of the reasons within 30 days.
If the President nullifies, reverses, modifies, or otherwise fails to recognize any denial, suspension, or revocation of a security clearance or access to classified information determination made by the Director under paragraph (1), not later than 30 days thereafter, the President shall submit an explanation (in writing) of the reasons for such nullification, reversal, modification, or failure to recognize to the appropriate committees of Congress.
The proposal would use definitions from existing laws to determine who qualifies as a political appointee or special Government employee. It does not reproduce those definitions, so the supplied text does not establish their full scope.
(A) Political appointee The term political appointee has the meaning given that term in section 4(a)(4) of the Edward Ted Kaufman and Michael Leavitt Presidential Transitions Improvements Act of 2015 (Public Law 114–136; 5 U.S.C. 3101 note). (B) Special government employee The term special Government employee has the meaning given that term in section 202 of title 18, United States Code.
The supplied actions snapshot, updated May 13, 2025, records introduction in the House on February 26, 2025, and referral that day to the Oversight and Government Reform and Judiciary committees for consideration of provisions within their respective jurisdictions.
Source snapshot updated 2025-05-13T15:17:21Z.
2025-02-26: Introduced in House
2025-02-26: Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, 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 · 2025-02-26. 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 materially narrow preferential benefit, carve-out, or special exemption was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: May 13, 2025. How PlainBill uses AI