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…
The SEER Act of 2025 tightens ethics rules for special Government employees (SGEs).
It (1) requires formal designation on personnel records, (2) narrows conflict-of-interest exceptions and requires timely public posting of waivers for many SGEs, (3) bars certain SGEs from communicating with agencies about firms they own or lead, (4) creates a public searchable database of non-advisory SGEs with a rolling day count and rationale, (5) expands public financial-disclosure requirements for many SGEs, and (6) treats SGEs who serve more than 60 or 130 days in a year as subject to the same ethics rules as regular employees.
Moderate reform with technical complexity and stakeholder pushback; plausible to pass in altered form but not guaranteed.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive policy change that is reasonably well-specified in statutory amendments and transparency measures but leaves implementation resourcing, enforcement, and some definitional details to regulation or unspecified administrative action.
Liberals emphasize transparency and closing conflicts; conservatives stress deterrence of expert participation.
Liberals emphasize transparency and closing conflicts; conservatives stress deterrence of expert participation.
Likely supportive because the bill increases transparency and closes ethics loopholes that allow conflicts to remain hidden.
It treats high-usage SGEs more like regular employees and requires public disclosure of waivers and filings.
Generally favorable to reforms that reduce conflicts and boost transparency, but cautious about operational impacts and unclear definitions.
Would seek clearer rulemaking, phased implementation, and resource commitments.
Skeptical; sees potential for federal overreach that will dissuade private experts from serving and impose burdensome rules.
Worried about vague standards and expanded government control over advisory participation.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Moderate reform with technical complexity and stakeholder pushback; plausible to pass in altered form but not guaranteed.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals emphasize transparency and closing conflicts; conservatives stress deterrence of expert participation.
Moderate reform with technical complexity and stakeholder pushback; plausible to pass in altered form but not guaranteed.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive policy change that is reasonably well-specified in statutory amendments and transparency measures but leaves implementation resourcing, enforcement,…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.