PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 17, 2017
Executive Appointee Ethics Improvement Act
This bill lengthens from one to two years the ban on certain senior personnel of the executive branch and independent agencies from lobbying the department or agency in which the person served. If the Director of the Office of Government Ethics decides to waive this restriction, such decision shall be published in the Federal Register unless it would compromise national security.
The bill lengthens from two to five years the ban on certain very senior personnel of the executive branch and independent agencies, including the Vice President, from lobbying any office or employee of any department or agency in which such person served.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Certain high-level employees of the executive branch are subject to a lifetime ban on knowingly representing a foreign entity before any officer or employee of any department or agency of the United States with the intent to influence a decision of such officer or employee.
During a two-year period beginning on the date an individual is appointed to a covered position, such individual is banned from participating in any matter involving specific parties that is directly related to the individual's former employer or former clients. Additionally, any individual who was a registered lobbyist or who engaged in lobbying activities during a two-year period prior to appointment is prohibited from participating in any particular matter on which the individual made a lobbying contact or participating in the specific issue area in which the matter falls. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) may waive these requirements if OMB certifies in writing to various congressional committees that it is in the public interest to grant the waiver.
People & committees
Rep. Huffman, Jared [D-CA-2] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 11, 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.2500 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.2500 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.2500 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.2500 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.