crs_reports
Data license: Public Domain (U.S. Government data) · Data source: Federal Register API & Regulations.gov API
13,794 rows sorted by publish_date descending
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: status, publish_date (date), update_date (date)
| id | title | publish_date ▲ | update_date | status | content_type | authors | topics | summary | pdf_url | html_url |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R48940 | Current Foreign-Born Population by State and Congressional District | 2026-05-08T04:00:00Z | 2026-05-09T05:56:23Z | Active | Reports | Tilly Finnegan-Kennel, Ben Leubsdorf | Census, Temporary Immigration, Unauthorized Foreign Nationals, Permanent Immigration | The United States in 2024 was home to an estimated 50.2 million foreign-born individuals, who lived in every state and congressional district. This report provides a snapshot of recent U.S. Census Bureau estimates for the foreign-born population (i.e., people now living in the United States who were not U.S. citizens at birth) in each state, as well as estimates for the foreign-born population in each congressional district. It also discusses alternative and additional sources of data on the foreign-born population. | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R48940/R48940.1.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/HTML/R48940.html |
| IF13221 | Community Development Block Grants for Disaster Recovery: A Primer | 2026-05-08T04:00:00Z | 2026-05-09T05:56:25Z | Active | Resources | Joseph V. Jaroscak | In response to some disasters, Congress has provided supplemental funding for long-term disaster recovery and other related purposes under the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program’s statutory authority (42 U.S.C. §§5301 et seq.). Administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), this assistance is commonly referred to as CDBG-DR funding. Since FY1993, Congress has appropriated, and HUD has allocated, more than $111 billion in CDBG-DR funds. Roughly $65 billion of this total has been provided since FY2016. During this period, Congress also began to provide dedicated supplemental CDBG appropriations for certain mitigation activities, which are included in the totals. Overview CDBG-DR funding is intended to support needs unmet by other forms of federal disaster assistance, including Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) grants and Small Business Administration loans. Typically, Congress directs HUD to allocate CDBG-DR funds for use in the “most impacted and distressed areas” in jurisdictions with major disaster declarations under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. §§5121 et seq.; Stafford Act)—see for example P.L. 118-158. CDBG-DR is not a program with its own standing authorization or regulations. Instead, CDBG-DR funds, generally, are subject to the conventional CDBG program’s statutory authority and regulatory requirements. The text of CDBG-DR supplemental appropriations typically include specific statutory directives and authorize HUD to establish waivers and alternative requirements as circumstances may require, which can make each instance of CDBG-DR appropriations unique. Grants Management Process Although directives in appropriations acts and aspects of HUD’s grant administration may vary, the CDBG-DR funding and disbursement cycle typically follows a common series of general steps governed by congressional requirements and overarching HUD regulations. The basic steps in the CDBG-DR funding and disbursement process are listed… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF13221/IF13221.1.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/HTML/IF13221.html | |
| IF13220 | Congressional Nominations to U.S. Service Academies: Member Office Management Considerations | 2026-05-08T04:00:00Z | 2026-05-09T05:56:22Z | Active | Resources | Sarah J. Eckman, R. Eric Petersen | Members of Congress are authorized by law to nominate candidates for appointment to four U.S. service academies: the U.S. Military Academy (USMA); U.S. Naval Academy (USNA); U.S. Air Force Academy (USAFA); and U.S. Merchant Marine Academy (USMMA). A fifth service academy, the U.S. Coast Guard Academy (USCGA), does not require a congressional nomination for appointment. These institutions provide college-age Americans with a tuition-free, four-year undergraduate education and prepare them to be officers of some of the U.S. uniformed services. Upon graduation, service academy graduates are commissioned as officers in the active or reserve components of the military or the merchant marine for a minimum of five years. This In Focus provides some management considerations for addressing service academy nominations, a timeline for congressional nomination actions (Figure 1), and statutory and regulatory requirements for allocating congressional nominations to service academies. Additional information is available in CRS Report RL33213, Congressional Nominations to U.S. Service Academies: An Overview and Resources for Outreach and Management, CRS In Focus IF13219, Congressional Nominations to U.S. Service Academies: Candidate Qualifications and Noncongressional Nominating Authorities, and CRS Infographic IG10096, U.S. Service Academy Nominations: Timelines. Congressional Considerations The nomination of constituents to one of the service academies can provide Members of Congress with the opportunity to perform community outreach and other representational activities. In some states and congressional districts, nominations are highly competitive. Others are less competitive, and some offices do not receive expressions of interest from enough applicants to fill the number of nominations allocated. As a result, some congressional offices may need to dedicate considerable staff resources to the selection process to identify qualified candidates, while others can incorporate service academy nominations alongside other const… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF13220/IF13220.1.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/HTML/IF13220.html | |
| IF13219 | Congressional Nominations to U.S. Service Academies: Candidate Qualifications and Noncongressional Nominating Authorities | 2026-05-08T04:00:00Z | 2026-05-09T05:56:24Z | Active | Resources | Sarah J. Eckman, R. Eric Petersen | Members of Congress are authorized by law to nominate candidates for appointment to four U.S. service academies. These schools are the U.S. Military Academy (USMA); U.S. Naval Academy (USNA); U.S. Air Force Academy (USAFA); and U.S. Merchant Marine Academy (USMMA). A fifth service academy, the U.S. Coast Guard Academy (USCGA), does not require a congressional nomination for appointment. Although it is an essential component of the appointment process, a congressional nomination does not guarantee an individual’s admission or appointment to a service academy. Each academy requires the submission of a preliminary application to initiate the admissions process. In addition to requesting a nomination from a Member of Congress or another nominating official, an individual seeking appointment to a service academy must separately apply to the service academies to which he or she seeks to be appointed. Even when a candidate meets all these requirements and is deemed to be qualified for admission, he or she may not receive an official appointment, due to the limited number of spaces available at each service academy. This In Focus provides applicant qualification information for USMA, USNA, USAFA, USMMA, and USCGA; a timeline of actions for prospective nominees (Figure 1); and discussion of noncongressional appointment authorities to some service academies. It can be used to inform congressional staff of basic candidate qualifications or be provided to constituents who aspire to enroll in a service academy and seek a congressional nomination. Additional information for congressional offices is available in CRS In Focus IF13220, Congressional Nominations to U.S. Service Academies: Member Office Management Considerations, CRS Report RL33213, Congressional Nominations to U.S. Service Academies: An Overview and Resources for Outreach and Management, and CRS Infographic IG10096, U.S. Service Academy Nominations: Timelines. Acceptance and successful completion of a service academy appointment requires at least a nine-year obli… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF13219/IF13219.2.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/HTML/IF13219.html | |
| R48939 | National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations: A Guide to Component Accounts | 2026-05-07T04:00:00Z | 2026-05-09T05:54:53Z | Active | Reports | Carlos Acevedo, Emily M. McCabe, Cory R. Gill | Foreign Affairs, Foreign Affairs Budget & Appropriations | National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs (NSRP) appropriations legislation funds many U.S. nondefense international affairs activities. Between FY2008 and FY2025, the bill was titled Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPS) appropriations. Within NSRP appropriations, the Department of State and Related Programs (Title I) portion makes up about one-third of the funding, and the various foreign assistance accounts compose the remainder. For FY2026, NSRP is one of 12 appropriations acts that fund the federal government. Congress appropriated NSRP funds for FY2026 in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026 (Division F of P.L. 119-75). Division F of the act is divided into seven titles. Each title funds a variety of government activities, ranging from government agencies’ operational and administrative costs to direct grant funds for private nonprofit or multilateral organizations. By title, NSRP provisions set out activities as follows: Title I—Department of State and Related Programs funds State Department diplomatic programs and general operations, including Foreign and Civil Service personnel salaries and training, public diplomacy and cultural exchange programs, information technology maintenance and modernization, dues to the United Nations (UN) and other international organizations, international broadcasting, and embassy construction and diplomatic security. It also provides funding to U.S. diplomacy-focused nongovernmental organizations and legislative commissions. Title II—Administration of Assistance funds general operations and oversight of foreign assistance but not foreign assistance programs. Title III—Bilateral Economic Assistance is the primary funding source for the U.S. government’s humanitarian and international development programs. It includes bilateral assistance for disaster relief, global health, and economic development activities, as well as funding for several independent development-oriented agencies, notably the Millennium Challenge Corp… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R48939/R48939.3.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/HTML/R48939.html |
| R48937 | Congressional Votes on Surface Transportation Authorizations, 1978-2021 | 2026-05-07T04:00:00Z | 2026-05-09T05:53:59Z | Active | Reports | Lena A. Maman | Transportation Funding | Prior to 1978, Congress enacted separate highway and public transportation authorization acts. Congress began passing multiyear surface transportation authorization acts in 1978. These acts were often extended prior to the passage of subsequent multiyear acts. This report compiles congressional votes on enacted multiyear legislation related to surface transportation authorizations as well as information regarding the extensions of these acts. CRS obtained the information presented in this report from Congress.gov, the Congressional Quarterly Almanac, and the Federal Highway Administration. The current surface transportation authorization, which is Division A of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58), expires on September 30, 2026. | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R48937/R48937.4.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/HTML/R48937.html |
| LSB11430 | Congressional Court Watcher: Circuit Splits from April 2026 | 2026-05-07T04:00:00Z | 2026-05-09T05:54:56Z | Active | Posts | Michael John Garcia, Alexander H. Pepper | Jurisprudence | The U.S. Courts of Appeals for the thirteen “circuits” issue thousands of precedential decisions each year. Because relatively few of these decisions are ultimately reviewed by the Supreme Court, the U.S. Courts of Appeals are often the last word on consequential legal questions. The federal appellate courts sometimes reach different conclusions on the same issue of federal law, causing a “split” among the circuits that leads to the nonuniform application of federal law among similarly situated litigants. This Legal Sidebar discusses circuit splits that emerged or widened following decisions from April 2026 on matters relevant to Congress. The Sidebar does not address every circuit split that developed or widened during this period. Selected cases typically involve judicial disagreement over the interpretation or validity of federal statutes and regulations, or constitutional issues relevant to Congress’s lawmaking and oversight functions. The Sidebar includes only cases where an appellate court’s controlling opinion recognizes a split among the circuits on a key legal issue resolved in the opinion. This Sidebar refers to each U.S. Court of Appeals by its number or descriptor (e.g., “D.C. Circuit” for “U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit”). Some cases identified in this Sidebar, or the legal questions they address, are examined in other CRS general distribution products. Members of Congress and congressional staff may click here to subscribe to the CRS Legal Update and receive regular notifications of new products and upcoming seminars by CRS attorneys. Bankruptcy: The Fourth Circuit held that a Chapter 13 plan’s technical compliance with the “means test” calculation of disposable income under 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b) did not immunize the plan from the requirement in Section 1325(a) that the plan be proposed “in good faith,” as the two are separate, independent requirements. Chapter 13 debtors generally must devote their disposable income to paying unsecured creditors. Prior to 2005, bankruptcy courts evaluated… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/PDF/LSB11430/LSB11430.1.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/HTML/LSB11430.html |
| IG10097 | The Decennial Census | 2026-05-07T04:00:00Z | 2026-05-08T13:53:05Z | Active | Infographics | Taylor R. Knoedl | U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Census | / Information as of May 7, 2026. Prepared by Taylor R. Knoedl, Analyst in American National Government and Jamie Bush, Visualization Information Specialist. For more information see CRS Report IF12909, The Decennial Census of Population and Housing: An Overview. The Decennial Census The U.S. Census Bureau provides statistical data about the nation's people and economy through over 130 different surveys, including its foundational survey: the decennial census. The decennial census is mandated by Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, in order to determine each state's apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives. Preparing for and conducting the decennial census typically takes over ten years, beginning the prior decade and extending into the next decade. Phone Mail Enumerators went door-to-door to complete the Census Bureau’s nonresponse follow up (NRFU) operation for respondents that did not self-respond to the survey. Online Determine initial timelines and testing schedule Other relevant research to support decennial census operations Begin initial design research and testing Engage with public on planning Complete initial operations design Continue research and testing, including large-scale tests Finalize operational planning, supported by results from large-scale testing Conduct the decennial census; initial release of data and products, including reapportionment totals and redistricting data Conduct close-out activities, including the post-enumeration survey (PES) Data Collection The Census Bureau collected responses to the decennial census survey using three initial methods in 2020. Collected data are protected by confidentiality standards in Titles 13 and 44 of the U.S. Code. 67% Data Tabulation and Product Release The Census Bureau aims to enumerate every person within the United States and its territories. Census Bureau President Congress State Population Counts for Reapportionment 13 U.S.C. §141(b) Post-Enumeration Survey (PES) The Census Bureau conducts a Post-Enumeration Su… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IG/PDF/IG10097/IG10097.2.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IG/HTML/IG10097.html |
| IN12690 | The FY2027 President’s Budget in Historical Context: Revenues | 2026-05-06T04:00:00Z | 2026-05-09T05:56:17Z | Active | Posts | D. Andrew Austin | Budget, Public Finance & Taxation, Legislative & Budget Process, Executive Budget Process | On April 3, 2026, the Trump Administration submitted its budget for FY2027, which proposes to constrain nondefense spending, maintain spending on border security and immigration enforcement, and increase defense spending. In February 2026, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issued its budget and economic outlook along with its current-law baseline projections. This Insight discusses the Administration’s fiscal proposals in the context of longer-term budgetary trends and highlights selected events and legislation. Revenue Trends Figure 1 shows federal receipts by major category as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) since FY1962. Federal receipts exceeded outlays (gray line) in five years (FY1969, FY1998-FY2001). In all other years, the government ran a deficit, which required borrowing through the sale of Treasury securities. Economic conditions and employment levels affect tax receipts, as do major tax measures. Individual income tax collections reflect economic conditions, rising when employment and asset values increase and fall during recessions, and they are also the largest component of federal receipts, accounting for an estimated 8.6% of GDP in FY2026. Payroll taxes, such as for Social Security and Medicare, are the next largest revenue source, accounting for an estimated 5.7% of GDP in FY2026. Corporate income taxes as a share of GDP fell from 3.5% in FY1962 to an estimated 1.2% in FY2026. Major Tax Legislation The Revenue Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-272) lowered high Korean War-era marginal tax rates. Acts in the 1970s adjusted the tax code to offset bracket creep, where inflation pushed households into higher tax brackets. The 1981 Kemp-Roth act (P.L. 97-34) indexed brackets and cut marginal rates by about a quarter. A 1983 act (P.L. 98-21) aimed to stabilize Social Security’s finances for the coming 75 years by raising Social Security tax rates, phasing in a two-year increase in the full retirement age, and curtailing certain benefits. The 1986 Tax Reform Act (P.L. 99-514) lowered marginal rates and… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IN/PDF/IN12690/IN12690.3.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IN/HTML/IN12690.html |
| IN12689 | Colombia’s 2026 Presidential Election | 2026-05-06T04:00:00Z | 2026-05-08T11:38:08Z | Active | Posts | Clare Ribando Seelke | Colombia, South America, Latin America, Caribbean & Canada | On May 31, Colombia, a top U.S. security partner in Latin America, is scheduled to convene an election to replace President Gustavo Petro (2022-present), who is constitutionally barred from seeking reelection. U.S. officials and some Members of Congress have expressed concerns about the Petro government’s counterdrug and security policies. The 119th Congress has reduced foreign assistance to Colombia and placed additional conditions on that assistance. Some Members of Congress also have expressed concerns about political violence in Colombia since the June 2025 assassination of a presidential hopeful and threats against other candidates. The three main candidates are Iván Cepeda of Petro’s leftist Historic Pact (PH) and two conservative rivals—Paloma Valencia of the Democratic Center (CD) and independent Abelardo De la Espriella. Members of Congress may examine these candidates’ platforms and assess their possible implications for relations with the United States. If no candidate captures more than 50% of the vote, a runoff election is scheduled for June 21; the winner is to take office on August 7. Domestic Context and Campaign The legacy of outgoing President Petro, a polarizing figure whose popularity has risen since November, has influenced the elections. Supporters have praised Petro’s focus on reducing inequality through labor reform and historic minimum wage increases despite his government’s corruption scandals. The Petro administration’s deemphasis of coca eradication has coincided with record cocaine production. Also, the government’s “total peace” negotiations involving ceasefires with illegally armed groups may have bolstered the power of such groups and fueled violence. Increased violence could inhibit voting in some regions as armed groups seek to influence the election results. The results of Colombia’s March 8 legislative elections illustrated a left-right division among voters regarding how best to address violence, corruption, and economic issues but also the continued relevance of traditional… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IN/PDF/IN12689/IN12689.2.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IN/HTML/IN12689.html |
| IN12688 | DFC Shipping Reinsurance Facility: Iran Conflict and Strait of Hormuz | 2026-05-06T04:00:00Z | 2026-05-08T09:08:43Z | Active | Posts | Shayerah I. Akhtar, Nick M. Brown | Background In February 2026, U.S. and Israeli forces initiated military operations against Iran. Iran responded with retaliatory attacks and threats against commercial shipping transiting the Strait of Hormuz, through which more than one-quarter of crude oil and petroleum maritime trade transited to global markets. Hostilities and related developments contributed to a near-stoppage of maritime energy and other commerce through the Strait. On March 3, 2026, President Trump ordered the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) “to provide, at a very reasonable price, political risk insurance and guarantees for the Financial Security of ALL Maritime Trade, especially Energy, traveling through the Gulf.” He also stated naval escorts could be provided for transiting vessels. DFC announced a reinsurance facility on March 6, pledging an unprecedented $20 billion—almost ten-fold larger than any active DFC commitment—to help alleviate the maritime commerce disruptions. DFC indicated further details would be forthcoming. It is unclear if DFC has provided any coverage yet. The facility’s potential consequences for DFC’s strategic focus, operations, and risk profile raise issues for possible congressional oversight. DFC announcements indicate a $40 billion facility ($20 billion each from DFC and from private partners), focusing initially on “Hull & Machinery and Cargo.” DFC announced seven U.S. insurance partners, naming Chubb, a global property and casualty insurer, as the lead underwriter. Chubb is to “manage the facility, determine pricing and terms, assume risk, and issue policies” and “manage all claims.” DFC indicated a forthcoming application portal, meanwhile listing some key applicant information it would require to determine eligibility. DFC Background DFC is a federal agency that provides political risk insurance (PRI), direct loans, loan guarantees, and equity to promote private investment overseas to advance global development and U.S. foreign policy. DFC’s PRI program aims to cover risk of inve… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IN/PDF/IN12688/IN12688.2.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IN/HTML/IN12688.html | |
| IF13218 | Endangered Species Committee (“God Squad”) Exemption of Oil and Gas Activities in the Gulf of America | 2026-05-06T04:00:00Z | 2026-05-07T16:53:12Z | Active | Resources | Anthony R. Marshak, Pervaze A. Sheikh, Laura B. Comay | Introduction On March 31, 2026, the Endangered Species Committee (ESC; also known as the “God Squad”) voted to issue an exemption from Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for oil and gas exploration, development, and production activities in the Gulf of America (GoA). In accordance with Sections 7(h) and 7(j) of the ESA, the ESC exempted these oil and gas activities from the ESA requirements known as Section 7 consultation after the Secretary of Defense—who is using “Secretary of War” as a “secondary title” under Executive Order 14347 dated September 5, 2025—notified the Secretary of the Interior (the ESC chair) that an exemption was necessary for reasons of national security. This exemption was the first issued for national security reasons. To date, GoA oil and gas companies have abided by reasonable and prudent alternatives (RPAs) and other measures to mitigate effects on ESA-listed species and critical habitat when carrying out activities, as required in a 2025 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) biological opinion (BiOp) and 2018 and 2025 BiOps from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). In the request for an exemption, the Secretary of Defense stated that ongoing litigation related to endangered species threatens to halt oil and gas production in the region and that litigation diverts resources away from approving permits; limits agency discretion, leading to more restrictive operations; and creates instability and uncertainty that might discourage long-term development. Further, the Secretary asserted that if oil and gas exploration and development were halted, U.S. military operations and readiness would be disrupted, and U.S. adversaries such as Iran and Russia would benefit. In light of the Secretary’s determination under Section 7(j), the ESC granted the exemption. Several stakeholder groups have filed lawsuits regarding the ESC’s findings. Congress may be interested in how this exemption from Section 7 consultation could affect ESA-listed species (e.g., Rice’s whales, certai… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF13218/IF13218.1.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/HTML/IF13218.html | |
| R48936 | The Electoral College: Frequently Asked Questions | 2026-05-05T04:00:00Z | 2026-05-08T14:52:54Z | Active | Reports | R. Sam Garrett | Individual voters in the United States do not directly elect the President and the Vice President. Instead, their votes select intermediaries, known as electors, to cast votes for a presidential ticket on their behalf. Those electors make up the electoral college, which elects the President and the Vice President. Provisions in Article II and in the Twelfth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution establish the electoral college. The frequently asked questions discussed in this report provide a resource for Members of Congress and congressional staff as they conduct oversight, consider legislation, and address constituent questions related to policy issues concerning the electoral college. The report does not contain legal analysis. Some Members of Congress have occasionally proposed constitutional amendments to abolish or alter the electoral college. As of this writing, such proposals have not substantially advanced beyond introduction in recent Congresses. Throughout American history, one candidate has almost always won both the popular vote and the electoral college. On four occasions, the electoral college has produced a presidential winner inconsistent with the national popular vote. Currently, to win the presidency or vice presidency, a candidate must receive at least 270 of 538 electoral votes to achieve an electoral college majority. A contingent election would occur if no candidate won a majority in the electoral college. In such an instance, the House of Representatives would elect the President and the Senate would elect the Vice President. This report will be updated in the event of substantial legislative activity concerning the electoral college. | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R48936/R48936.2.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/HTML/R48936.html | |
| LSB11429 | Artificial Intelligence and the Fourth Amendment: Two Emerging Legal Issues | 2026-05-05T04:00:00Z | 2026-05-07T12:53:04Z | Active | Posts | Peter G. Berris | Various law enforcement components at the federal, state, and local levels report using artificial intelligence (AI) for some functions. Legislatures at the state and federal level have considered a variety of proposals relevant to the intersection of law enforcement, crime, and AI. Legal commentary has focused on the potential impact of AI on criminal justice, including everything from the admissibility of AI evidence, to sentencing, to AI-powered robot police officers, to the Fourth Amendment. Precise conceptualizations of AI vary, but the FBI has used the definition from the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act. That legislation defines AI to include, among other things, artificial systems “designed to think or act like a human,” or that “perform[] tasks under varying and unpredictable circumstances without significant human oversight,” or that “can learn from experience and improve performance when exposed to data sets.” Another federal statute defines AI as “a machine-based system that can, for a given set of human-defined objectives, make predictions, recommendations or decisions influencing real or virtual environments” and that uses human or machine inputs to perceive environments, abstract its perceptions, and thereby “formulate options for information or action.” This Legal Sidebar focuses on the potential Fourth Amendment implications of AI in two contexts. The first pertains to law enforcement seeking to obtain data generated from consumer use of AI products such as chatbot conversation histories and related data. The second context involves law enforcement use of surveillance tools augmented with AI, with a particular focus on Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs). This Legal Sidebar begins with a brief overview of Fourth Amendment concepts relevant to both topics and concludes with considerations for Congress. For a list of additional CRS products covering other aspects of AI, see CRS Insight IN12458, Artificial Intelligence: CRS Products, by Laurie Harris and Rachael D. Roan (2025). The Fourth… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/PDF/LSB11429/LSB11429.1.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/HTML/LSB11429.html | |
| IN12687 | Argentine Beef Import Quota Expansion | 2026-05-05T04:00:00Z | 2026-05-06T16:07:58Z | Active | Posts | Benjamin Tsui, Christine Whitt | In February 2026, the average price cattle producers received for their cattle reached a record high. The price increase was in part due to the year-over-year decreases in U.S. cattle inventory, suspended cattle imports from Mexico due to New World Screwworm, and slower pace of U.S. cattle slaughter. The reduction in cattle inventory led to an increase in the retail price of beef across the United States. The U.S. beef cattle supply chain is made up of interconnected links. The supply chain comprises cattle producers that raise beef cattle, processors that slaughter the beef cattle to develop beef products, and entities that sell the beef products to U.S. consumers directly or through intermediaries. Typically, if the price the cattle producer receives for the cattle increases, the price for beef products that U.S. consumers purchase also would increase. This price dynamic may sometimes contribute to entities along the U.S. beef supply chain and U.S. consumers of beef products having different perspectives on policies affecting domestic production of cattle and U.S. beef prices, particularly in periods of rising cattle and U.S. retail beef prices. On February 6, 2026, President Trump issued a proclamation to address the high U.S. beef prices for American consumers by temporarily increasing the volume for the U.S. beef tariff-rate quota (TRQ) for imported Argentine beef. Under TRQs, a certain volume of imports enter in-quota and face lower or no duties. Imports that enter outside of the in-quota volume (i.e., out-of-quota) face higher duties. The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the authority to regulate foreign commerce and impose tariffs. Congress delegated authority to administer agricultural TRQs to the President, including for beef imports, under Section 404 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (P.L. 103-465, 19 U.S.C. §3601). Additionally, the President “may temporarily increase the quantity of imports” under the in-quota rate of an agricultural product TRQ if existing supplies are inadequate to “meet domes… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IN/PDF/IN12687/IN12687.1.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IN/HTML/IN12687.html | |
| IF13217 | Federal Government and Anthropic: Considerations for AI Innovation and Competition | 2026-05-05T04:00:00Z | 2026-05-07T09:38:00Z | Active | Resources | Laurie Harris, Clare Y. Cho | Artificial Intelligence, Telecommunications & Internet Policy, Competition Policy & Law, Technology & Innovation | On February 27, 2026, President Trump directed federal agencies to stop using technology developed by the U.S. artificial intelligence (AI) company Anthropic, and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announced he was directing the Department of Defense (DOD) to designate Anthropic a “Supply-Chain Risk to National Security.” (DOD and the Secretary are now using “Department of War” and “Secretary of War,” respectively, as “secondary” designations per Executive Order 14347.) These actions followed a reported months-long dispute between DOD and Anthropic regarding certain uses of its AI technologies. The national security risk designation and use prohibitions may have implications for AI innovation and competition, including at Anthropic and other domestic AI companies. This In Focus provides information on the AI models under debate, actions taken by the U.S. government (USG), the potential implications of those actions, and considerations and questions for Congress. Frontier AI Models: Potential Capabilities and Limitations Frontier AI models are the most advanced foundation models—general-purpose AI models pretrained on large datasets that can be used for many applications. Anthropic’s Claude model, one such frontier model, reportedly has been deployed across DOD and national security agencies for such applications as intelligence analysis, operational planning, and cyber operations. In June 2024, Anthropic stated it was the first AI company to deploy frontier models in classified USG networks. In July 2025, four U.S. AI companies entered into contracts with DOD to “accelerate [DOD] adoption of advanced AI capabilities to address critical national security challenges.” DOD awarded up to $200 million each to Anthropic, Google, OpenAI, and xAI. The Pentagon reportedly agreed to the use in classified systems of xAI’s Grok model, Google’s Gemini model, and six other tech companies’ AI models, as of May 1, 2026. While asserting a belief in “the existential importance of using AI to defend the United States and other de… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF13217/IF13217.2.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/HTML/IF13217.html |
| R48935 | Facial Recognition Technology: Definitions, Applications, and Policy Considerations for Congress | 2026-05-04T04:00:00Z | 2026-05-06T14:38:04Z | Active | Reports | Dominique T. Greene-Sanders | Facial recognition technology (FRT) is a type of biometric technology designed to identify or verify an individual by analyzing unique and measurable facial features. FRT has received attention from policymakers and the public, in large part because of technical advances and use by both public and private sector entities. FRT usage has the potential to optimize performance, enhance security, and increase the speed of tasks that were once handled by humans (e.g., identity verification in airports). The use of FRT has raised issues regarding data privacy and disclosure of its use, as well as bias and accuracy—particularly across different demographic groups. There is no universally accepted definition of FRT, and disagreement persists among technology developers, policymakers, and academics regarding what the term includes when used in various contexts. Legislation and guidelines have offered differing definitions of FRT, ranging from narrow ones focused on verification and identification to broader interpretations that include emotion detection, age estimation, and facial characteristic classifications. Different definitions may affect which technologies are categorized as FRT. FRT is employed across a wide range of sectors, including the military, law enforcement, financial services, public health, and education, as well as in activities such as employment decisions and immigration enforcement. FRT usage offers several potential benefits, such as increased security, efficiency, and convenience. Additionally, FRT usage raises concerns, for example, whether FRT systems are designed and deployed in ways that avoid or mitigate bias and are transparent and accurate—particularly across different demographic groups. FRT applications in three particular sectors—transportation and airport security, housing, and law enforcement—have garnered specific interest from the public, Congress, and industry, based on perceptions of the frequency of FRT’s use and its potential risks and benefits. Some state and local governments ha… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R48935/R48935.2.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/HTML/R48935.html | |
| R48934 | Introduction to Tribal Forestry | 2026-05-04T04:00:00Z | 2026-05-06T16:23:03Z | Active | Reports | Mariel J. Murray, Anne A. Riddle | Native American Lands & Resources, Federal Land Management | The United States and federally recognized Tribes (“Tribes”) have a unique relationship that affects federal policies regarding forestry on tribal lands. In particular, the United States has a federal trust responsibility, which is a legal obligation under which the United States, through treaties, acts of Congress, and court decisions, “has charged itself with moral obligations of the highest responsibility and trust” toward Tribes and tribal citizens. This responsibility can include federal obligations to protect tribal trust assets, which are tribal trust lands, natural resources, trust funds, or other assets held by the federal government in trust for Tribes and tribal citizens. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) within the Department of the Interior (DOI) is the lead agency charged with managing tribal trust assets, including tribal forests. Forested tribal lands can be described in different ways. For consistency throughout this report, CRS primarily uses the term Indian forest land as defined by the National Indian Forest Resources Management Act (NIFRMA). NIFRMA defines the term Indian forest land as including tribal trust or restricted fee lands that are commercial and noncommercial timberland and woodland, and are “considered chiefly valuable for the production of forest products or to maintain watershed or other land values enhanced by a forest cover.” These include lands both within and outside of tribal reservation boundaries. According to the most recent periodic assessment of tribal forests and forest management in the United States, as of 2019, there were 19.4 million acres of tribal forest. Tribal forest acres are highly concentrated within a few states, and with a few Tribes. For example, 5.4 million acres (28%) of tribal forests belong to a single Tribe, the Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico & Utah. Accordingly, 8.4 million acres (43%) of tribal forests are located in Arizona and New Mexico, including Navajo forests and forests belonging to other Tribes. Overall, almost all tribal forest acre… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R48934/R48934.3.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/HTML/R48934.html |
| LSB11428 | Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: The Adjudication of Petitions and the 240-Day Deadline | 2026-05-04T04:00:00Z | 2026-05-06T16:38:00Z | Active | Posts | Hannah-Alise Rogers | Department of Health & Human Services (HHS), Vaccines & Immunization, Judicial Branch, Public Health Services & Special Populations, Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) | The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) was created by Congress via the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. The VICP is a no-fault compensation program made up of two essential components. First, it allows individuals who suffer vaccine-related injuries or deaths to receive compensation by filing a petition for compensation with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (Court of Federal Claims) and serving the petition on the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Second, the statute provides a liability shield for vaccine manufacturers and administrators (i.e., individuals who administer vaccines), which generally prevents injured individuals from bringing lawsuits until the VICP process is exhausted. Congress directed the Office of Special Masters (OSM), which adjudicates petitions for compensation, to determine entitlement within 240 days of the filing of the petition. If a petition has not been adjudicated within that time frame, a petitioner may voluntarily dismiss it; this provision is known as the “240-day deadline.” Thus, a petitioner may exhaust the VICP remedy either by fully adjudicating a VICP petition, or by withdrawing the petition after the 240-day deadline. Historically, some individuals who were not entitled to VICP compensation have subsequently sued vaccine manufacturers. In recent years, there has been concern that more petitioners will use the 240-day deadline to exit the program and instead pursue litigation against manufacturers, potentially circumventing the general purpose of the VICP statute. For example, in 2022, hundreds of petitioners filed complaints in federal court that were consolidated into a multidistrict litigation against Merck, the maker of the Gardasil vaccine (In re Gardasil Products Liability Litigation). Most, but not all, of those litigants first exhausted their VICP remedy. For the claimants who did not exhaust their VICP remedy, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Fourth Circuit) ruled in 2025 that timely participat… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/PDF/LSB11428/LSB11428.1.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/HTML/LSB11428.html |
| LSB11427 | CDC’s Updated Childhood Vaccine Schedule: Litigation and Potential Implications for Vaccine Injury Compensation Program | 2026-05-04T04:00:00Z | 2026-05-06T16:07:57Z | Active | Posts | Hannah-Alise Rogers | Department of Health & Human Services (HHS), Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), Vaccines & Immunization, Executive Branch, Judicial Branch, Public Health Services & Special Populations | In December 2025, President Trump issued an executive memorandum in which he instructed the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to “review best practices from peer, developed countries for core childhood vaccine recommendations,” to determine if updates to the childhood immunization schedule were warranted. The memorandum stated that “[p]eer, developed countries recommend fewer childhood vaccinations” than the United States, and it characterized the then-current schedule as “depart[ing] from [vaccine] policies in the majority of developed countries.” In January 2026, HHS released an assessment comparing vaccine recommendations in the United States with 20 peer nations, concluding that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), a division of HHS, should update the childhood vaccination schedule to recommend fewer vaccines for children. The assessment found that the United States “is a global outlier among developed nations in both the number of diseases addressed in its routine childhood vaccination schedule and the total number of recommended doses.” A few days later, CDC announced a new childhood vaccine schedule, which modified the recommendation types of six vaccines. While the previous schedule recommended these six vaccines for administration to all children, the new schedule recommends that they be received only by certain risk-based groups and/or based on an individual decision process between the child’s parent(s) or guardian(s) and their health care provider (a process known as “shared clinical decision-making” (SCDM)). In creating the new schedule, CDC did not consult with the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), the federal advisory committee that has made both childhood and adult vaccine recommendations to the HHS Secretary for more than 60 years. When the new schedule was announced in January 2026, the agency did not involve ACIP or explain why it had not followed CDC’s typical process of having ACIP vote to recommend any changes made to the… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/PDF/LSB11427/LSB11427.3.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/HTML/LSB11427.html |
| IN12691 | President’s FY2027 Budget Request in Historical Context: Outlays | 2026-05-04T04:00:00Z | 2026-05-09T05:56:25Z | Active | Posts | D. Andrew Austin | Legislative & Budget Process, Executive Budget Process | On April 3, 2026, the Trump Administration submitted its FY2027 budget request to Congress. That budget proposes increases in defense spending, reductions in most nondefense discretionary spending, and seeks to maintain spending on border security and immigration enforcement, among other priorities. In February 2026, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issued its budget and economic outlook and its current-law baseline projections. This Insight discusses the Administration’s fiscal proposals in the context of longer-term budgetary trends. Outlays Figure 1 shows federal outlays by Budget Enforcement Act (BEA; P.L. 101-508) categories since FY1962 and total receipts (dark blue line), both measured as shares of GDP. Annual appropriations acts fund and control discretionary outlays. Other laws fund mandatory outlays. Mandatory spending mostly supports social insurance, health, and retirement programs. Over time, mandatory spending’s share of federal outlays has grown, while discretionary spending’s share has declined. Some observers express concern that the growth of mandatory spending has left a shrinking portion of the federal budget controlled by Congress on an annual basis. Rising deficits in the 1980s spurred Congress to constrain deficit levels through the 1985 Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act. The 1990 BEA set statutory caps on discretionary budget authority (BA) and established pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) limits on mandatory spending and tax cuts. By FY1998, the federal government achieved its first budget surpluses in a generation, as caps on discretionary BA and PAYGO limits on mandatory outlays helped align spending and revenues. Strong economic growth, Social Security payroll taxes boosted by Baby Boomers—those born in the two decades after World War II—in their peak earnings years, and the Soviet Union’s 1991 collapse all helped achieve four years of budget surpluses. PAYGO and discretionary caps expired shortly after the attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11 attacks). The Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA; P.L. 112… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IN/PDF/IN12691/IN12691.1.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IN/HTML/IN12691.html |
| IG10096 | U.S. Service Academy Nominations: Timelines | 2026-05-04T04:00:00Z | 2026-05-09T05:56:14Z | Active | Infographics | R. Eric Petersen, Sarah J. Eckman | Service Academy Nominations, Service Academies | / U.S. Service Academy Nominations and Appointments General Timelines for Congress, Academies, and Applicants Members of Congress are authorized by law to nominate candidates for appointment to four U.S. service academies: the U.S. Military Academy (USMA); U.S. Naval Academy (USNA); U.S. Air Force Academy (USAFA); and U.S. Merchant Marine Academy (USMMA). In the 18 months prior to the enrollment of new academy classes, congressional Member offices, the service academies, and applicants are involved in a series of events and actions to carry out their respective roles and responsibilities. This Infographic presents approximate timelines of when typical events and activities occur. These timelines present generalized information, representing when these events and activities most frequently occur. Many applicants are high school students and apply during grade levels corresponding with “Junior Year” and “Senior Year.” Other applicants are not high school students, including some active duty and reserve military members seeking appointment, though the timelines remain relevant. CLASS ENTERS ACADEMY PROSPECTIVE APPLICANTS/CANDIDATES House and Senate Member Offices Outreach for prospective nominees Host service academy events Publicize nomination deadlines Common deadlines for office nomination deadlines Selection panel consideration, applicant interviews Notify nominees Submit nominations to service academies Publicize appointees attending academies Service Academies Pre-Candidate Questionnaire opens* Rolling Application review Fill any remaining appointments Applicants Submit pre-applicant questionnaire. Take SAT, ACT, or CLT** Complete application requirements, submit application Accept or decline appointment Appointees begin academy YEAR 1 YEAR 2 DEC 31 Outgoing Members JAN 31 Returning Members Senior Year Junior Year MAY 1 JUL 1 Typical Deadlines Outgoing Member offices submit nominations to academies DEC 31 Returning Member offices submit nominat… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IG/PDF/IG10096/IG10096.2.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IG/HTML/IG10096.html |
| IF13216 | Connecting Constituents with Federal Programs for Historic Preservation | 2026-05-04T04:00:00Z | 2026-05-09T05:53:58Z | Active | Resources | Scott Vierick, Mark K. DeSantis | Federal Land Management | Congress has established programs and provided grant funding to assist constituents—including individuals, organizations, and state, tribal, and local governments—with historic preservation efforts. This In Focus lists selected federal programs that may be used to further historic preservation goals such as building restoration, land acquisition, and education. The National Park Service (NPS) administers most federal historic preservation funding programs. Many federal grants are awarded to state, tribal, and local governments, which in turn may issue sub-awards to other entities. Interested applicants are encouraged to contact federal agencies, state agencies, or tribal agencies for information on eligibility, the application process, award cycles, and availability. Funding levels for the programs listed below vary and may be subject to appropriations. Since January 2025, President Trump has issued executive orders addressing the use of federal funds in various areas. Several of these orders—aspects of which are subject to litigation—direct relevant agencies to pause certain grant-related and other funding activities and may affect the resources discussed in this CRS In Focus. For more information about the federal role in historic preservation, see CRS Report R45800, The Federal Role in Historic Preservation: An Overview, by Mark K. DeSantis. Historic Preservation Fund Grant Programs The NPS’s Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) encompasses several different programs. Funding from the HPF is distributed through both formula-based apportionment grants and competitive grants. Formula Grants Each year, NPS distributes HPF formula grants to state historic preservation offices (SHPOs) and tribal historic preservation offices (THPOs). Within general parameters established by NPS, these offices have flexibility on how they distribute HPF funds. Grant seekers should contact their SHPOs or THPOs directly to learn more about available funding opportunities. NPS maintains a list of SHPOs, and the National Association of T… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF13216/IF13216.1.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/HTML/IF13216.html |
| IF13215 | Office of Strategic Capital: Overview and Considerations | 2026-05-04T04:00:00Z | 2026-05-06T13:08:06Z | Active | Resources | Marcy E. Gallo | Technological advantage has long contributed to the dominance of the U.S. Armed Forces. Some analysts and policymakers also suggest that U.S. technological superiority—and, by extension, national security—is at risk due to a number of factors. They include a rapidly evolving global landscape for innovation and the increasing technological prowess of potential adversaries. As a result, the Department of Defense (DOD, which is “using a secondary Department of War designation” under Executive Order 14347) and Congress have taken a number of steps intended to improve government support for and management of defense-related innovation, including the establishment of new DOD organizations such as the Office of Strategic Capital (OSC) (10 U.S.C. §149). This In Focus provides an overview of OSC, including its mission, roles, responsibilities, programs, and funding. It also highlights selected issues for Congress pertaining to OSC transparency, accountability, and funding levels and whether to provide OSC with the authority to make equity investments. Establishment and Mission of OSC The mission of the OSC is to use the United States’ comparative advantage in private capital markets to attract and scale investments in technologies critical to national security. A press release announcing the establishment of OSC on December 1, 2022, stated that “critical technologies ... often require long-term financing to bridge the gap between the laboratory and full-scale production.” It quoted the then-Secretary of Defense as stating, “By working with the private capital markets and by partnering with our federal colleagues, OSC will address investment gaps and add a new tool to the Department’s investment toolbox.” OSC Roles and Responsibilities In 2023, Section 903 of P.L. 118-31, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2024, codified and outlined the duties of OSC to include developing, integrating, and implementing capital investment strategies proven in the commercial sector to shape and scale investment in… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF13215/IF13215.2.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/HTML/IF13215.html | |
| IF13214 | Private Equity in Selected Industries: Policy Background | 2026-05-04T04:00:00Z | 2026-05-05T07:07:56Z | Active | Resources | Eva Su | Private equity (PE)—which falls within a broader set of investment products often called alternative investments, private capital, or private funds—is a pooled investment vehicle that generally raises money from accredited investors and invests primarily in private (non-publicly traded) companies. PE participation could provide benefits associated with capital formation, performance and productivity gains, distressed company resolution, and competition enhancement. Compared with public funds, PE typically involves less regulation and transparency, less investor access, lower liquidity, greater valuation challenges, and higher fees and expenses. Some Members of Congress and industry observers contend that PE’s profit-maximizing business model may appear incompatible with certain public interest-oriented industry sectors, especially those that receive tax advantages, grants, financial backstops, and other forms of benefits because their work is seen as building public good. Critics argue that PE practices amplify financial fragility and social harm without fully recognizing and pricing externalized risks. PE investment may lead to adverse effects on the long-term well-being of customers, employees, and communities. For policymakers, industry-specific discussions often are about understanding which stakeholder interests to prioritize, how PE funding operates in specific contexts, and what policy changes may help preserve benefits while mitigating risks. For more about PE operations and regulation, see CRS Report R47053, Private Equity and Capital Markets Policy, by Eva Su. PE Operational Focus and Features Figure 1 illustrates a list of industries—including software (which has generated major risks to PE investors in 2026), health care, financial services, real estate, industrial services and products, and media—that attracted relatively large numbers of PE deals as of 2025. Although some public interest-oriented industries (e.g., child care and youth sports) are not the primary recipients of PE funding, PE’s in… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF13214/IF13214.1.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/HTML/IF13214.html | |
| R48932 | The Senior Executive Service: Overview and Recent Developments | 2026-05-01T04:00:00Z | 2026-05-02T05:54:00Z | Active | Reports | Maeve P. Carey | The Senior Executive Service (SES) was established in the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) of 1978 as a centralized personnel system of government managers. The vast majority of members of the SES are career appointees who generally comprise the highest levels of leadership within federal agencies, often reporting directly to the Senate-confirmed agency leadership. As a result of the SES’s position within the federal government, senior executives often play a large role in the implementation of federal programs and management of the civil service. According to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), as of April 2026, the SES had 6,647 members. Congress created the SES to encourage productivity and efficiency in government administration and to establish sturdy and continuous leadership that would remain in place across presidential Administrations. Several aspects of the SES’s statutorily established organization, structure, and operations were meant to contribute to these outcomes. For example, the SES is primarily (around 85%-90%) career appointees who have protections against politically motivated removal. Certain aspects of the SES performance management system were established in law; for example, senior executives receive performance appraisals based on their own performance as well as their organization’s performance. The SES has a performance-based pay system that includes basic pay and potential eligibility for performance awards. The SES hiring process prioritizes applicants’ executive qualifications and includes a shared responsibility between agencies and OPM to ensure that the individuals selected for appointment are adequately qualified for membership in the SES and the position for which they may be hired. The Trump Administration has made several changes that have advanced a stronger view of presidential control over the SES. On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued a presidential memorandum entitled “Restoring Accountability for Career Senior Executives.” The memorandum instructed OPM and ag… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R48932/R48932.1.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/HTML/R48932.html | |
| R48930 | Government Shutdowns: Applying the Antideficiency Act to a Lapse in Appropriations | 2026-05-01T04:00:00Z | 2026-05-02T05:53:54Z | Active | Reports | Sean Stiff, Matthew D. Trout | Antideficiency Act, Federal Financial Management, Government Shutdown | Congress funds much of the federal government through a series of 12 regular, annual appropriations acts. A significant portion of that funding is for a single fiscal year, and most agencies thus rely on passage of new appropriations before the end of that fiscal year to have uninterrupted funding from one fiscal year to the next. If Congress does not pass the regular appropriations acts or a continuing resolution that generally continues funding at the prior year’s level, an agency reliant on annual appropriations faces a funding lapse. This lapse in appropriations has significant consequences for governmental operations. Commonly called a “government shutdown,” the cessation of government functions and related furloughs of government employees that result from a lapse in appropriations are largely a function of a collection of statutes referred to as the Antideficiency Act. When the Act’s first provisions were enacted in 1870, it was Congress’s attempt to control government spending of appropriated funds to avoid the problem of coercive deficiencies—a situation where an agency obligates funds in excess of appropriated amounts or prematurely depletes an appropriation in a manner that pressures Congress to pass supplemental or “deficiency” appropriations. Over time, Congress has added to and amended the Antideficiency Act’s various prohibitions and exceptions, creating what is a significant fiscal control law. Today, a combination of the Antideficiency Act’s core prohibitions and the related bar on voluntary services result in a suspension of many, but not all, government functions during a lapse in appropriations. During such a lapse, agencies apply the Act’s prohibitions and its exceptions to determine what functions may continue and what functions must cease until further appropriations are provided. Understanding government conduct during a lapse in appropriations thus requires an understanding of the Antideficiency Act and related appropriations laws. The Antideficiency Act generally precludes government emp… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R48930/R48930.2.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/HTML/R48930.html |
| LSB11426 | The Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause’s Ban on Executing the Intellectually Disabled | 2026-05-01T04:00:00Z | 2026-05-02T05:54:01Z | Active | Posts | Dave S. Sidhu | In 2002, the Supreme Court in Atkins v. Virginia ruled that the imposition of capital punishment on the intellectually disabled constitutes “cruel and unusual” punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, leaving to the states the responsibility to determine who qualifies as intellectually disabled. (The Eighth Amendment binds both the federal as well as state and local governments by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment.) In and after Atkins, the Court has provided some guideposts to the states in performing this constitutional inquiry. The Court has not, however, resolved whether and how states may consider a defendant’s scores from multiple Intellectual Quotient (IQ) tests. This term, in Hamm v. Smith, the Court may resolve the open question. This Sidebar discusses the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on the Eighth Amendment and the imposition of capital punishment on the intellectually disabled. It sketches the Supreme Court’s specific decisions applying the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause to the subject of executing the intellectually disabled. Against this backdrop, this Sidebar provides an overview of the Hamm case that remains pending before the Supreme Court. Finally, this Sidebar closes with considerations for Congress. The Categorical Ban on Imposing Capital Punishment on Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities Atkins v. Virginia In 2002, the Supreme Court determined in Atkins v. Virginia that subjecting prisoners with intellectual disabilities to capital punishment had become “truly unusual,” and that it was “fair to say” that a “national consensus” had developed against this policy. To wit, in 1989, only two states that otherwise permitted capital punishment and the federal government prohibited the execution of persons with intellectual disabilities. By contrast, in 2002, the Court observed, an additional sixteen states that otherwise allowed capital punishment had prohibited execution of persons with intellectual disabilities, and no states had reinstated the power. What… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/PDF/LSB11426/LSB11426.1.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/HTML/LSB11426.html | |
| IF13213 | Veterans Affairs Life Insurance (VALife) | 2026-05-01T04:00:00Z | 2026-05-02T05:52:57Z | Active | Resources | T. Lynn Sears | Veterans Disability Compensation & Pensions | The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) administers several life insurance programs. Two of these programs, the now-closed Service-Disabled Veterans’ Insurance (S-DVI) program and the recently launched Veterans Affairs Life Insurance (VALife) program, provide life insurance for certain veterans with service-connected disabilities. The Johnny Isakson and David P. Roe, M.D. Veterans Health Care and Benefits Improvement Act of 2020 (P.L. 116-315) required VA to establish a new VA life insurance program for veterans with service-connected disabilities (VALife) and close the existing S-DVI program to new applicants. VALife was designed to meet the needs of veterans who had previously been unable to qualify for life insurance with VA. VALife launched on January 1, 2023. Existing S-DVI policyholders are able to keep their S-DVI coverage or apply for VALife. This In Focus provides a brief description of VALife, compares VALife’s features with plans under S-DVI, provides metrics on the uptake of VALife, and provides resources on VALife and S-DVI. VALife Plan Features VALife provides guaranteed acceptance, whole life insurance coverage to eligible veterans with service-connected disabilities. Guaranteed acceptance means that if the eligibility requirements for VALife are met, VAwould automatically approve the application without the need to prove good health. Whole life means policyholders can keep their coverage for the rest of their lives. Policies may be selected for up to $40,000 in coverage and build cash value starting two years after application approval (two-year waiting period). Eligibility Generally, a veteran is eligible for VALife if he or she is age 80 or younger and has a VA disability rating (no time limit) or age 81 or older and applied for VA disability compensation for a service-connected disability before turning 81 years old, and received a rating for that same disability after turning 81 years old, and applied for VALife within two years of getting notification of the disability rating. Premiums Premi… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF13213/IF13213.1.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/HTML/IF13213.html |
| R48929 | Overview of FY2027 Appropriations for Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies (CJS) | 2026-04-30T04:00:00Z | 2026-05-02T05:52:55Z | Active | Reports | Nathan James | Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations | This report describes actions to provide FY2027 appropriations for Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies (CJS) accounts. The annual CJS appropriations act provides funding for the U.S. Department of Commerce, which includes bureaus and offices such as the Census Bureau, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology; the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), which includes agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. Marshals Service, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the Offices of the U.S. Attorneys; the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; the National Science Foundation; and several related agencies such as the Legal Services Corporation and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. On January 23, 2026, the Commerce, Justice, Science; Energy and Water Development; and Interior and Environment Appropriations Act, 2026 (P.L. 119-74) was signed into law by President Trump. The act provided a total of $82.619 billion for CJS departments and agencies, which included $11.132 billion for the Department of Commerce; $37.079 billion for the Department of Justice; $33.196 billion for the science agencies; and $1.212 billion for the related agencies. The Administration requests a total of $75.159 billion for CJS for FY2027, which is $7.460 billion (-9.0%) less than the FY2026 regular appropriation. The Administration’s request for CJS includes $9.748 billion for the Department of Commerce, which is $1.385 (-12.4%) less than the FY2026 regular appropriation; $41.887 billion for the Department of Justice, which is $4.807 billion (+13.0%) more than the FY2026 regular appropriation; $22.800 billion for the science agencies, which is $10.396 billion (-31.3%) less than the FY2026 regular appropriation; and $725 million for the related agencies, which is $487 million (-40.2%) less than the FY2026 regular appropriation. | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R48929/R48929.1.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/HTML/R48929.html |
| R48928 | Restoring the Great Salt Lake Ecosystem | 2026-04-30T04:00:00Z | 2026-05-02T05:52:57Z | Active | Reports | Charles V. Stern, Anna E. Normand, Laura Gatz, Eric P. Nardi, Pervaze A. Sheikh | The Great Salt Lake—located in Utah—is the largest saline lake in the United States. The Great Salt Lake supports wetland habitat for shorebirds, migratory birds, and waterfowl. The lake also supports several economically important activities for the region, including tourism, recreation, the brine shrimp (Artemia sp.) industry, and mineral extraction. Over the past two decades, water levels in the lake have decreased, largely due to less water flowing into the lake, drought, and increasing temperatures. In October 2022, water levels in the lake were measured at record lows. In the past three years, water levels have risen, but they are still at levels considered harmful for the ecosystem. Concern over sustained low water levels in the Great Salt Lake is shared by stakeholders and some Members of Congress due to the economic, environmental, and associated health impacts of low water levels, among other concerns. Decreasing water levels and increased salinity can adversely affect the lake’s ecosystem, disrupting fish and wildlife populations and exposing dry lake bed to the air. In some areas, exposed lakebed contains toxic sediments. Winds and dust storms can aerosolize soils and transport toxins to areas inhabited by humans, potentially leading to health issues. The State of Utah is spearheading efforts to increase water flows to the Great Salt Lake and restore the ecosystem in and around the lake. The state established the Office of the Great Salt Lake Commissioner in 2023 and tasked the commissioner to create a plan for restoring the lake. In 2024, the commissioner released The Great Salt Lake Strategic Plan, which aims to restore the lake while balancing ecological, economic, and societal interests. The state government also implemented regulations that aim to maintain water flows into the lake and several measures to address water conservation that aim to help the lake retain or receive more water. One federal government initiative by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and some national-level pr… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R48928/R48928.2.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/HTML/R48928.html | |
| R48927 | Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) FY2027 Budget Request: In Brief | 2026-04-30T04:00:00Z | 2026-05-02T05:52:56Z | Active | Reports | Alyse N. Minter | Housing Budget & Appropriations | This report provides a brief overview of the President’s FY2027 budget request for the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). It also identifies relevant Administration budget documents and CRS reports. | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R48927/R48927.2.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/HTML/R48927.html |
| R48917 | S.Con.Res. 33: The FY2026 Budget Resolution | 2026-04-30T04:00:00Z | 2026-05-02T05:53:28Z | Active | Reports | Drew C. Aherne, Megan S. Lynch | In April 2026, the House and Senate adopted S.Con.Res. 33, a budget resolution for FY2026. The budget resolution generally represents an agreement between the House and Senate on a budgetary plan for the upcoming fiscal year. Certain budgetary levels established in the budget resolution are enforceable through points of order during floor consideration of subsequent budgetary legislation in the House and Senate. A budget resolution may also trigger the budget reconciliation process, which allows Congress to develop and consider certain budgetary legislation that can then be considered in the Senate using expedited procedures. In order for a budget resolution to have force and effect, both chambers must adopt an identical version of the same concurrent resolution. Because it is a concurrent resolution, it does not need to be signed by the President to have force and effect in Congress. S.Con.Res. 33 establishes aggregate budgetary levels related to total revenues, spending, the deficit, and the public debt for FY2026-FY2035. It also includes several other provisions, most of which relate to the congressional budget process. These include reserve fund provisions and other provisions related to budget procedure in the House and Senate. For Congress to use the reconciliation process, it must first adopt a budget resolution that includes reconciliation directives. Title II of S.Con.Res. 33 includes reconciliation directives to two House committees and two Senate committees, instructing each committee to develop and submit legislation within their jurisdictions increasing the deficit by no more than $70 billion over FY2026-FY2035 (for a potential total deficit increase of no more than $140 billion in each chamber) by May 15, 2026. | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R48917/R48917.4.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/HTML/R48917.html | |
| LSB11425 | Sirius Solutions, L.L.L.P. v. Commissioner: The Fifth Circuit’s Decision Interpreting the Limited Partner Exception to Self-Employment Taxes | 2026-04-30T04:00:00Z | 2026-05-01T15:08:06Z | Active | Posts | Milan N. Ball | Business & Corporate Tax, Individual Tax, Jurisprudence, Medicare, Self-Employment Contributions Act (SECA) Taxes, Social Security, Pass-Through Businesses | On January 16, 2026, in Sirius Solutions, L.L.L.P. v. Commissioner, a divided three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Fifth Circuit) rejected the Tax Court’s interpretation of the limited partner exception to self-employment taxes. Under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) § 1402(a)(13), taxpayers who are “limited partners” can qualify to exclude their distributive share of partnership income (or loss) from self-employment income. The term “limited partner” for purposes of the limited partner exception is not defined in the IRC. As a result, there are multiple cases discussing the application of self-employment taxes to partners that turn on the meaning of limited partner. In Sirius Solutions, the Fifth Circuit majority interpreted limited partner for purposes of the limited partner exception to mean “a partner in a limited partnership that has limited liability” and rejected the Tax Court’s functional analysis and “passive investor” interpretation. The Fifth Circuit vacated the Tax Court’s ruling and sent the case back to the Tax Court for “further proceedings consistent” with its limited liability interpretation. As a consequence, state-law limited partners who have limited liability under state law and are acting in a partner capacity might not be subject to federal self-employment taxes even when they actively participate in limited partnership business. On April 1, 2026, the government petitioned the Fifth Circuit for a rehearing en banc in Sirius Solutions. Challenges to the Tax Court’s functional analysis and limited partner interpretation are pending before the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the First and Second Circuits. Past attempts by the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to restrict eligibility for the limited partner exception have been unsuccessful. This Legal Sidebar provides an overview of how self-employment taxes and Social Security benefits apply to limited partners, summarizes the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Sirius Solutions, an… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/PDF/LSB11425/LSB11425.1.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/HTML/LSB11425.html |
| LSB11424 | Department of Justice Eases Control of Medical Marijuana | 2026-04-30T04:00:00Z | 2026-05-01T10:45:53Z | Active | Posts | Joanna R. Lampe | Controlled Substances Act (CSA), Department of Justice (DOJ), Drug Control, Marijuana | On April 23, 2026, the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a final order easing some controls of medical marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Specifically, the order provides that marijuana and its derivatives are now controlled in Schedule III under the CSA to the extent they are “included in [a Food & Drug Administration (FDA)]-approved drug product or are subject to a state-issued license to manufacture, distribute, and/or dispense marijuana or products containing marijuana for medical purposes.” This Legal Sidebar provides an overview of the rescheduling order, then discusses the legal implications of the order and selected considerations for Congress related to marijuana regulation. Background on Cannabis Regulation Cannabis and its derivatives generally fall within one of two categories under federal law: marijuana or hemp. Unless an exception applies, the CSA classifies the cannabis plant and its derivatives as marijuana (some provisions of the statute use an alternative spelling, “marihuana”). The CSA definition of marijuana excludes (1) products that meet the legal definition of hemp and (2) the mature stalks of the cannabis plant; the sterilized seeds of the plant; and fibers, oils, and other products made from the stalks and seeds. Marijuana is a controlled substance under the CSA. Currently applicable federal law defines hemp as the cannabis plant or any part of that plant with a concentration of no more than 0.3% of the psychoactive cannabinoid delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). In November 2025, Congress enacted legislation changing the definition of hemp so that, among other things, it is defined based on total THC concentration rather than just the concentration of delta-9 THC. The new definition is scheduled to take effect in November 2026. Other CRS products discuss the legal and policy implications of that change. The non-psychoactive compound cannabidiol (CBD) falls within the legal definition of hemp. Hemp, including CBD, is not a controlled substance under the CSA. The CSA es… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/PDF/LSB11424/LSB11424.1.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/HTML/LSB11424.html |
| IN12686 | The 2/37ths Limitation on Itemized Deductions | 2026-04-30T04:00:00Z | 2026-05-02T05:53:32Z | Active | Posts | Nicholas E. Buffie | Itemized Deductions, Individual Tax, Tax Reform | In July 2025, as part of the FY2025 reconciliation law (P.L. 119-21), Congress enacted a new limitation on itemized tax deductions for high-income taxpayers. This Insight describes itemized tax deductions, explains how the new limitation works, and analyzes the limitation’s effects. Itemized Deductions: Background and Distributional Impact When Americans file their income tax returns, they may use deductions to exempt certain amounts of income from taxation. For example, a taxpayer with $100,000 of income who claims deductions totaling $20,000 will have a taxable income of $80,000. There are four broad types of deductions: (1) above-the-line deductions; (2) the standard deduction; (3) itemized deductions; and (4) “other” deductions. Above-the-line deductions and “other” deductions may be claimed by all taxpayers, though taxpayers must claim either the standard deduction or itemized deductions. The standard deduction allows taxpayers to reduce their taxable incomes by certain amounts—$16,100 for single filers, $24,150 for head-of-household filers, and $32,200 for married couples in 2026 (amounts are adjusted annually for inflation). Itemized deductions are claimed for certain expenses paid by the taxpayer. As shown in Table 1, three particular expenses—charitable contributions, mortgage interest, and state and local tax (SALT) payments—constitute about three-quarters of all itemized deduction amounts. Table 1. Taxpayer Use of Itemized Deductions, Tax Year 2023 (Filing Year 2024) Taxpayer Incomes Share with Itemized Deductions Average Itemized Deductions Share of All Itemized Deductions Claimed Charitable Contributions Deduction Mortgage Interest Deduction State and Local Tax Deduction All Other Itemized Deductions Below $50,000 2% $32,262 11% 21% 15% 54% $50,000 to $100,000 9% $28,852 16% 29% 23% 31% $100,000 to $500,000 21% $37,717 23% 34% 24% 19% $500,000 to $1 Million 52% $64,654 35% 27% 15% 23% $1 Million to $5 Million 66% $142,579 50% 11% 7% 33% $5 Million or More 83% $1,361,925 68% 1% 1% 31% All T… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IN/PDF/IN12686/IN12686.3.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IN/HTML/IN12686.html |
| IG10095 | Medicare Payment for Rural or Geographically Isolated Hospitals, 2026 | 2026-04-30T04:00:00Z | 2026-05-01T10:45:51Z | Active | Infographics | Marco A. Villagrana | Medicare | / Medicare Payment for Rural or Geographically Isolated Hospitals Traditional Medicare pays most acute-care hospitals under the inpatient prospective payment system (IPPS). Some IPPS hospitals receive payment adjustments, which may help address the potential financial distress associated with rural, geographically isolated, and low-volume hospitals. These Medicare payment designations are Sole Community Hospitals (SCHs), Medicare-Dependent Hospitals (MDHs), and Low-Volume Hospitals (LVHs). Other similar acute-care hospitals—Critical Access Hospitals (CAHs)—are paid based on reasonable cost, not under IPPS. 2026 Medicare Hospital Payment IPPS Inpatient Prospective Payment System A predetermined, fixed, per discharge payment for inpatient services furnished to Medicare beneficiaries, subject to adjustments. All IPPS Hospital Designations SCH, MDH, LVH Duplicated; designations not mutually exclusive Hospital Designation Locations Eligibility Criteria Adjusted payment No. of hospitals Sole Community Hospital (SCH) Meets ONE of the following FOUR criteria: > 35 miles from another IPPS hospital Rural and 25-35 miles from another hospital and Is the exclusive hospital provider in the area, or < 50 beds, meets exclusive hospital provider criterion but for patient transfers to other hospitals for specialized care Rural and 15-15 miles from another hospital(s) that is inaccessible due to topography or severe weather conditions Rural and 45-minute drive to nearest other hospital (due to distance, speed limits, and weather conditions) The > of the following: Hospital-specific rate applicable reference years1 FY - Fiscal Year 423 14%* Medicare-Dependent Hospital (MDH) Meets ALL of the following criteria: Rural 100 beds Not an SCH 60% are Medicare patients MDH is a temporary program that will expire January 1, 2027, if Congress does not extend or make it permanent. 162 5%* Low-Volume Hospital (LVH) Meets ALL of the following criteria: > 15 miles from another IPPS hospital < 3,800 annual total discharges LV… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IG/PDF/IG10095/IG10095.1.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IG/HTML/IG10095.html |
| IF13212 | U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: FY2027 Appropriations | 2026-04-30T04:00:00Z | 2026-05-01T17:38:02Z | Active | Resources | Anna E. Normand, Nicole T. Carter | Congress generally funds and provides related policy direction to the civil works activities of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in annual Energy and Water Development appropriations acts and their accompanying documents. USACE primarily plans and constructs authorized water resource projects and operates and maintains USACE-managed infrastructure and navigation improvements. Many of these activities are managed by staff at 39 of USACE’s district offices. USACE uses most of its appropriations on specific studies and projects authorized by Congress, which are often cost shared with nonfederal sponsors. President Trump released the FY2027 budget request on April 3, 2026. The request includes $6.66 billion for USACE, which is $3.77 billion less in nominal dollars than the roughly $10.44 billion provided for FY2026 (see Figure 1). The Administration also proposed different accounts compared with FY2026, including a District Salaries and Expenses (S&E) account. The S&E Account would fund the salaries of USACE district and field office employees, plus other operational costs, separately from direct study and project costs, which would be funded in traditional study and project accounts (e.g., the Construction account). Figure 1. Annual USACE Budget Requests and Appropriations, FY2020-FY2026, and FY2027 Request / Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on appropriations acts and USACE budget requests. Notes: Does not reflect supplemental funds, redirection of prior-year appropriations, rescissions, or reprogramming. The lines show inflation-adjusted FY2019-FY2025 amounts in FY2025 dollars using FY2027 Budget of the U.S. Government, Historical Tables, Table 10.1. FY2027 Request: Selected Topics Proposed District Salaries and Expenses Account In the FY2027 request the Administration proposes altering budgeting of USACE district S&E. In previous budget requests and appropriations acts, study and project accounts (Investigations, Construction, Operation and Maintenance [O&M], and Mississippi River and… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF13212/IF13212.1.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/HTML/IF13212.html | |
| R48925 | The Food and Drug Administration’s Food Traceability Rule: Overview and Issues for Congress | 2026-04-29T04:00:00Z | 2026-05-01T15:23:02Z | Active | Reports | Laura Pineda-Bermudez | Food Safety | Foodborne illness outbreaks and subsequent recalls have garnered broad public attention to the safety of the U.S. food supply. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA; P.L. 111-353), enacted in 2011, aimed to improve food safety, among other objectives. In Section 204 of FSMA, Congress directed FDA to improve the tracking and tracing of food through the supply chain by establishing additional recordkeeping requirements for facilities handling certain foods frequently associated with foodborne illness outbreaks. The additional recordkeeping requirements were intended to enable more efficient removal of products from the market in the case of an outbreak leading to a recall. FDA has established these recordkeeping requirements in the Food Traceability Rule, as described below. Prior to FSMA, some entities that handled, manufactured, packed, transported, or distributed food were required to keep records to trace food one step forward and one step back in the supply chain. Notably, farms and restaurants were not required to keep such records. Through FSMA, §204, Congress directed FDA to conduct pilot projects, collect and assess data, establish a list of high-risk foods, and issue regulation establishing additional recordkeeping requirements for foods on the high-risk list. Congress directed the agency to require certain records from entities that “manufacture, process, pack, or hold” foods on the list, including some previously exempt food establishments. FDA was to ensure the requirements were science-based and proportionate to risks associated with the food; that the public health benefits would outweigh the compliance costs; and that the burden on subject entities would be minimized whenever possible. FDA has implemented many of the Section 204 requirements. Some implementation has occurred after the deadlines set by Congress. On September 23, 2020, FDA published the proposed rule, “Requirements for Additional Traceability Records for Certain Foods” (the “Food Traceability Rule… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R48925/R48925.2.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/HTML/R48925.html |
| R48923 | First Responder Network (FirstNet) Authority: Reauthorization and Selected Issues | 2026-04-29T04:00:00Z | 2026-05-01T16:07:58Z | Active | Reports | Colby Leigh Pechtol, Amanda H. Peskin | In the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-96)—in response to communications issues experienced during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and other disasters—Congress created the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet Authority). The FirstNet Authority is an independent authority within the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), under the U.S. Department of Commerce. P.L. 112-96 tasked the FirstNet Authority with establishing a nationwide public safety broadband network (FirstNet Network) dedicated to and customized for public safety use. The act provided $7 billion in electromagnetic spectrum auction proceeds to fund the FirstNet Authority and FirstNet Network; allocated 20 megahertz of spectrum for public safety use; directed the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to grant a renewable 10-year spectrum license to the FirstNet Authority (which was granted in 2012 and renewed in 2023); authorized the FirstNet Authority to enter into a public-private partnership to develop, deploy, and operate the FirstNet Network; and directed that the FirstNet Network be permanently self-sustaining. The statutory authorization of the FirstNet Authority expires in February 2027. In March 2017, the FirstNet Authority awarded a 25-year contract to AT&T to build and maintain the FirstNet Network. P.L. 112-96 required that states be given the choice to opt in to the FirstNet Network or opt out and build a separate statewide network that would be interoperable with the FirstNet Network. By January 2018, all states, territories, and the District of Columbia had opted in, meaning AT&T would be deploying the FirstNet Network in each jurisdiction. In March 2018, the FirstNet Authority announced that AT&T had begun deploying the FirstNet Network, including the core network and cell sites, in each state. By December 2023, the FirstNet Authority validated that the initial five-year build-out was complete. In February 2024, the FirstNet Authority (with AT&T) announced p… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R48923/R48923.2.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/HTML/R48923.html | |
| LSB11423 | Trump v. Barbara: Supreme Court Considers Birthright Citizenship | 2026-04-29T04:00:00Z | 2026-04-30T15:01:35Z | Active | Posts | Hannah Solomon-Strauss | Executive Branch, Civil Rights & Liberties, Immigration & Nationality Act (INA), The Supreme Court of the United States, Immigration, Permanent Immigration | On April 1, 2026, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara. The question before the Court was whether Executive Order 14160 (E.O. 14160, or the E.O.), “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” is constitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause and authorized by 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) that codifies the Citizenship Clause. This Legal Sidebar provides a brief overview of the arguments made by the parties in this litigation and a summary of the oral argument. For further information on E.O. 14160 and earlier stages of the litigation, see CRS Legal Sidebar LSB11414, Birthright Citizenship: Litigation Status Update, by Hannah Solomon-Strauss and Juria L. Jones (2026). The Citizenship Clause and Executive Order 14160 The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment reads, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The clause has been interpreted only sparingly by the Supreme Court since the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification in 1868. In those cases, the Court has interpreted the clause to mean that every child born in the United States is a citizen at birth, regardless of their parents’ alienage. On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed E.O. 14160. The E.O. seeks to interpret “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the Citizenship Clause to limit who may be considered a U.S. citizen from birth. The E.O. states: “It is the policy of the United States that no department or agency of the United States government shall issue documents recognizing United States citizenship, or accept documents issued by State, local, or other governments or authorities purporting to recognize United States citizenship, to persons” whom the executive branch believes are not granted citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment solely by being born in the United States. The E.O. outlines two categories o… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/PDF/LSB11423/LSB11423.2.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/HTML/LSB11423.html |
| IN12685 | The General Business Credit | 2026-04-29T04:00:00Z | 2026-05-01T14:52:57Z | Active | Posts | Donald J. Marples, Nicholas E. Buffie | Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), Business & Corporate Tax, Energy Tax Credits | The general business tax credit represents the sum of 41 separate business credits specified in Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 38(b). Each of these component credits is computed separately under its own IRC section, and then all of the credits are added together. For corporations, the most significant of these general business credits in terms of revenue cost is the credit for research and experimentation (IRC §41), followed by the low-income housing credit (IRC §42). Many of the credits relate to energy. Credits not included in the general business credit include personal credits in IRC §§22-26 that are unrelated to business, the foreign tax credit (IRC §27), certain credits (IRC §30) relating to alternative fuel vehicles, and the credit for prior year alternative minimum tax liability (IRC §53). The general business credit is a nonrefundable credit that is subject to a limitation based on the business’s tax liability. Any credit that exceeds this limit may generally be carried back one year (or three years for IRC §6417 applicable credits, or five years for the IRC §45I marginal well production credit) and carried forward 20 years. Several components of the credits, known as “specified credits” (IRC §196), that remain unused at the end of the carryforward period may be deducted in the following year. The general business credit for a tax year is the sum of the general business credit carryforwards to the year; the current year business credit (that is, the total of the component credits for the tax year); and the business credit carrybacks to the tax year. Taxable Liability Limitation The general business credit is subject to a limitation based on tax liability that varies for corporate and noncorporate taxpayers. Tax liability is calculated after nonrefundable, non-general business credits. The limit is calculated using three amounts. Net income tax is the sum of the taxpayer’s regular tax liability and any alternative minimum tax (AMT) liability, reduced by specified nonrefundable credits. Net regula… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IN/PDF/IN12685/IN12685.3.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IN/HTML/IN12685.html |
| IF13211 | Fossil Fuel Tax Benefits | 2026-04-29T04:00:00Z | 2026-05-01T14:52:57Z | Active | Resources | Nicholas E. Buffie, Donald J. Marples | Energy Tax Policy | In recent years, lawmakers have expressed interest in federal subsidies for the domestic fossil fuel industry. This In Focus provides high-level descriptions of fossil fuel income tax benefits and their costs, including tax benefits that discourage greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and other fossil fuel tax benefits. More detailed descriptions of all relevant provisions are in CRS Report R46865, Energy Tax Provisions: Overview and Budgetary Cost. Introduction Tax benefits—credits, deductions, and other ways of lowering a company’s or individual’s tax bill—are the primary type of subsidy used by fossil fuel producers. A 2023 study from the Energy Information Administration found that tax benefits constituted 85% of all federal subsidies for fossil fuel interests from FY2016 to FY2022. Estimates from the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) suggest that the largest fossil fuel tax benefits total about $19.1 billion over FY2025-FY2029, an average of $3.8 billion per year. Not included in that total are some provisions that are described as having de minimis costs (i.e., less than $250 million over five years) or that do not have JCT estimates. Each provision is described below with JCT estimates when available. Also, companies with fossil fuel operations at times invest in geothermal, offshore wind, and other energy sources that may qualify for renewable energy tax credits. Those credits are not discussed below. Fossil Fuel Tax Benefits Designed to Reduce Pollution and GHG Emissions Credit for carbon oxide sequestration—$9.2 billion over FY2025-FY2029 Taxpayers may claim the carbon oxide sequestration credit for captured carbon dioxide and monoxide amounts. For taxpayers meeting prevailing wage and apprenticeship (PWA) requirements, the credit amounts are $180 per metric ton that is captured using Direct Air Capture (DAC) technologies and $85 per ton captured using non-DAC technologies. Captured carbon oxides must be geologically sequestered or reused by the taxpayer. Credit amounts will be adjusted for inflation starting… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF13211/IF13211.2.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/HTML/IF13211.html |
| IF13210 | The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA): Issues for the 119th Congress | 2026-04-29T04:00:00Z | 2026-04-30T10:53:31Z | Active | Resources | Anthony R. Marshak | The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended (MSA; 16 U.S.C. §1801 et seq.), is the primary law authorizing the conservation and management of U.S. federal marine fisheries (i.e., those occurring in waters up to 200 nautical miles beyond state or territorial waters). First enacted in April 1976 (P.L. 94-265), MSA governs both commercial and recreational fisheries, in addition to nontarget fishery species (e.g., ecosystem component species). Among its provisions, MSA established eight Regional Fishery Management Councils (FMCs), which develop fishery management plans and/or fishery ecosystem plans. These plans are jointly implemented with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) following their approval by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary). Since its enactment, Congress has extensively amended MSA’s provisions twice; first in 1996 (P.L. 104-297) and again in 2006 (P.L. 109-479). Although the act’s authorization of appropriations expired at the end of FY2013, MSA requirements remain in effect and Congress has continued to appropriate funds for NMFS and partners to administer the act. Proposals to extensively amend MSA in the past several Congresses include bills such as the Sustaining America’s Fisheries for the Future Act of 2025 (H.R. 3718 in the 119th Congress; similar legislation in the 117th [H.R. 4690] and 118th [H.R. 8862] Congresses) and the Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act (H.R. 59 in the 117th Congress and H.R. 200 in the 115th Congress). Fisheries Policy Challenges and Considerations During the first decade after MSA’s passage, fisheries policy focused primarily on controlling and replacing foreign (i.e., non-U.S.) fishing off the United States and on developing U.S. fisheries in the newly declared 200-nautical-mile Fishery Conservation Zone. Subsequently, U.S. fisheries management priorities have shifted to include sustaining fishery populations and respo… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF13210/IF13210.1.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/HTML/IF13210.html | |
| R48931 | Sports Reform in the United States: College Athletics and the Olympic Sports Pipeline | 2026-04-28T04:00:00Z | 2026-05-02T05:53:42Z | Active | Reports | Ben Wilhelm | In the United States, the last decade has seen substantial disruption of both college and Olympic sports. The two systems are closely integrated because college athletic programs function as an essential part of America’s Olympic sports pipeline by providing opportunities for elite training and competition to top athletes. College sports, in particular, are in the process of a substantial transformation brought on by the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (NCAA’s) 2021 decision—under pressure from courts, state legislatures, and other stakeholders—to pause enforcement of its rules that barred student-athletes from making money by signing agreements with third parties allowing for the use of their personal name, image, and likeness (NIL). Following that decision, the NCAA, member institutions, and current and former players settled a lawsuit challenging those rules. In their place, the parties have agreed to a system that allows most NIL payments as well as revenue sharing with players from their institutions. These changes have the potential to significantly alter the American collegiate and Olympic sports landscapes. Collegiate athletic departments have a long history of offering major spectator sports such as football and basketball, which can generate enough revenue to support themselves, as well as a variety of Olympic sports, which generally do not. Cost considerations aside, collegiate support is vitally important for Olympic sports, as intercollegiate competition through colleges and universities is the primary training ground for athletes working to break through into elite, international competition. Additionally, because colleges and universities fund Olympic sports training, there is substantially less pressure on the federal government to provide dedicated funding for elite sports, which is how most other countries fund their Olympic programs. In the face of this legal and financial uncertainty for intercollegiate and Olympic sports, many stakeholders believe that Congress may be uniquely pos… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R48931/R48931.1.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/HTML/R48931.html | |
| R48921 | Paid Sick Leave in the United States | 2026-04-28T04:00:00Z | 2026-05-01T10:45:51Z | Active | Reports | Sarah A. Donovan | Wages & Benefits, Employer-Provided Leave Benefits | Paid sick leave is generally a compensated, excused absence from work for the purposes of medical recovery, treatment, or examination. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 80% of private sector workers had access to paid sick leave in March 2025, but the availability of leave was not uniform across occupations and industries. While federal law generally does not entitle private sector employees to paid sick leave, 18 states (including the District of Columbia) have laws that require private sector employers to provide paid sick leave to their employees and 3 additional states require employers to provide paid leave that can be used for any purpose. Some employers who are not covered by state leave mandates elect to include paid sick leave as part of their compensation packages, or provide it as part of collective bargaining agreements with employees. Congress has considered a range of proposals to expand workers’ access to paid sick leave, including by mandating employer-provided paid sick leave or by allowing employees to be compensated for overtime hours in paid leave in lieu of overtime pay (“comp time”). Proponents of federal policies to increase access to paid sick leave often cite its potential to improve worker well-being, workplace productivity, and public health. While recognizing possible gains, some observers have cautioned that federal leave policies should account for employers’ costs or allow employers to tailor leave policies to the specific needs of their workplaces. This report provides an overview of employees’ access to paid sick leave in the United States, discusses state laws that create an entitlement to such leave and research on the impacts of these mandates, and describes recent federal proposals to increase access to paid sick leave. | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R48921/R48921.3.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/HTML/R48921.html |
| IN12684 | Changes to CDC Vaccine Recommendations in 2025 and 2026 | 2026-04-28T04:00:00Z | 2026-04-30T09:23:14Z | Active | Posts | Kavya Sekar, Alexandria K. Mickler | Since U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (hereinafter, HHS Secretary) was sworn in on February 13, 2025, HHS has changed several long-standing federal vaccine recommendations. In addition, HHS has issued recommendations for vaccines newly licensed (i.e., approved) by the Food and Drug Administration. This CRS Insight summarizes vaccine recommendation changes to date and related developments. For over 60 years prior to 2025, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)—a committee of scientific and health experts in immunization—made vaccine recommendations to HHS, particularly the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). For each vaccine recommendation, ACIP typically reviewed scientific evidence, developed a new or updated recommendation, and then voted on the recommendation. ACIP’s recommendation was subsequently reviewed by the CDC Director, who decided whether to adopt it as an official HHS/CDC recommendation. ACIP also voted annually, typically in the fall, to update the following year’s childhood/adolescent and adult immunization schedules. These consolidated schedules list CDC’s recommendations for vaccines routinely offered to patients, presented in a format to aid clinical practice. Many federal and state laws reference ACIP’s recommendations and CDC’s immunization schedules. In 2025 and 2026, HHS changed several aspects of policy and practice related to ACIP and CDC vaccine recommendations. On June 9, 2025, the HHS Secretary removed all 17 then-sitting ACIP committee members and subsequently appointed new members. At the June, September, and December meetings, the reconstituted committee voted on several vaccine recommendations, which CDC/HHS subsequently adopted. HHS also changed multiple vaccine recommendations without consulting ACIP, including for the entire childhood immunization schedule in January 2026. The changes made after June 11, 2025, are currently stayed by a district court order, meaning that they presently have no eff… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IN/PDF/IN12684/IN12684.2.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IN/HTML/IN12684.html | |
| IG10094 | Constitutional Equal Protection Analysis | 2026-04-28T04:00:00Z | 2026-04-29T10:23:03Z | Active | Infographics | April J. Anderson | Fifth Amendment, Equal Protection, Jurisprudence, Civil Rights & Liberties | / Constitutional Equal Protection Analysis "No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." - U.S. CONST. amend. XIV S 1 OBLIGATION Equal protection obligations apply to the federal government through the Fifth Amendment. RESTRICTION Equal protection restricts the ways the government can classify similarly situated individuals. JUSTIFICATION The justification required (called the level of scrutiny) depends on the type of classification. Is a statute, regulation, or other government action singling someone out for a burden or a benefit? YES What is the basis for the different treatment? NO The government can make some distinctions, for example reporting race and sex in census data, without equal protection review. Kind of classification Race, Color, National Origin, Alienage, or Ancestry* National origin, alienage, and ancestry are only sometimes included in this group. Level of scrutiny Strict Scrutiny Narrowly tailored to serve A compelling government interest (Often, the claimed government interest is to remedy past discrimination) This level of review is stringent and very difficult for the government to satisfy. Sex, Gender, Nonmarital Children The Supreme Court has yet to decide whether this category includes sexual orientation or gender identity. Intermediate Scrutiny M Substantially related to, An important government objective This level of review is easier for the government to meet than strict scrutiny but requires more careful assessment than rational basis review. Other Reasons Examples include classifications based on income, disability, or veteran status. Rational Basis Review M Reasonably related to A legitimate government interest This standard is relatively easy to satisfy. Activities Violating Equal Protection Examples: Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard coll., 600 U.S. 81 (2023) Holding, among other things, that university racial admissions preferences were not narrowly tailored to se… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IG/PDF/IG10094/IG10094.1.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IG/HTML/IG10094.html |
| R48926 | Enforcement of Federal Pollution Control Laws | 2026-04-27T04:00:00Z | 2026-05-01T11:45:43Z | Active | Reports | Cassandra J. Barnum, Kate R. Bowers, Andrew S. Coghlan | Congress has enacted an array of statutes designed to protect the environment and human health from the impacts of pollution. These laws allow the government, and sometimes private parties, to pursue enforcement actions against those who violate statutory requirements or prohibitions. Whether and how the statutes are enforced informs how well they achieve Congress’s legislative goals. Federal pollution control statutes generally require regulated entities to apply for, obtain, and abide by permits to conduct certain activities involving potential discharges of pollutants to the environment. These laws also typically have robust recordkeeping and reporting requirements, which facilitate government oversight. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) monitors compliance pursuant to its civil inspection and criminal investigation authorities. EPA and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) typically conduct enforcement actions on behalf of the federal government. Many statutes also authorize “citizen suits”—lawsuits by nonfederal actors seeking injunctive relief or penalties with respect to alleged violations. Enforcement actions generally fall into one of three broad categories: administrative enforcement, civil judicial enforcement, and criminal enforcement. Administrative enforcement refers to actions taken by EPA outside the court system. Such actions can include orders to take corrective action, withdrawal of permits, and imposition of penalties up to certain amounts. These actions require various degrees of process; some corrective action orders can be issued based on an agency determination that a violation has occurred, while permit withdrawals or money penalties typically follow a hearing where the accused has an opportunity to submit evidence to a neutral adjudicator. Administrative enforcement actions are subject to judicial review, allowing courts to determine whether agencies have acted within the scope of their statutory and constitutional authority. Exercising that power of review, the Supreme Court… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R48926/R48926.1.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/HTML/R48926.html | |
| R48922 | Comparison of House- and Senate-Passed Versions of H.R. 6644 | 2026-04-27T04:00:00Z | 2026-05-01T12:24:31Z | Active | Reports | Henry G. Watson, Katie Jones, Maggie McCarty, Andrew P. Scott, Darryl E. Getter | Each chamber of Congress has considered and approved a multifaceted housing bill in the 119th Congress: On August 1, 2025, the Senate Banking Committee reported the Renewing Opportunity in the American Dream (ROAD) to Housing Act of 2025 (S. 2651). On October 9, 2025, a version of that bill passed the Senate as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026 (S. 2296). On January 15, 2026, the House Financial Services Committee reported a separate housing bill, the Housing for the 21st Century Act (H.R. 6644). A revised version was passed by the House on February 9, 2026. On March 12, 2026, the Senate passed a substitute amendment to H.R. 6644 under the short title of the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act. The Senate’s amended version included several provisions from the ROAD to Housing Act of 2025. This report compares the latter two bills: the House-passed Housing for the 21st Century Act (H.R. 6644 as passed by the House) and the Senate-passed 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act (H.R. 6644 as amended in the Senate). The House-passed Housing for the 21st Century Act and the Senate-passed 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act address similar housing policy topics, with some substantive differences. Several sections in the House bill have no corresponding section in the Senate bill. There are also several sections in the Senate bill that have no corresponding section in the House bill. Other sections correspond between the House and Senate bills, addressing the same topic. In some sections, the texts of the two bills are identical or have only technical changes; in other sections, they have substantive differences. The tables in this report provide a side-by-side comparison of the House bill and the Senate bill, ordered according to the following major topics: Housing Finance and Homeownership, Manufactured and Modular Housing, State and Local Land Use, Environmental Review, Community Planning and Development Program Reforms, Rental Housing Assistance Program Reforms, Other Program Reforms… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R48922/R48922.2.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/HTML/R48922.html | |
| R48918 | The 2026 Farm Bill (H.R. 7567): Comparison with Current Law | 2026-04-27T04:00:00Z | 2026-04-30T11:08:51Z | Active | Reports | Lisa S. Benson, Randy Alison Aussenberg, Eleni G. Bickell, Kelsi Bracmort, Jim Monke, Zachary T. Neuhofer, Anne A. Riddle, Stephanie Rosch, Megan Stubbs, Benjamin Tsui, Christine Whitt, Cathleen D. Cimino-Isaacs, Gene Falk, Laura Gatz, Alicyn R. Gitlin, Jason O. Heflin, Kristen Hite, Heather McPherron, Alexandria K. Mickler, Laura Pineda-Bermudez, Karen M. Sutter, Erin H. Ward, Jerry H. Yen | Agriculture Budget & Appropriations, Farm Bill | Congress has established federal policy related to the food and agriculture sectors through periodic farm bills since the 1930s. The farm bill is an omnibus, multiyear law and is the primary piece of legislation that governs an array of agricultural and food programs. The most recent farm bill, the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (2018 farm bill; P.L. 115-334), expired in 2023. It was extended three times, for a year at a time. The latest law to extend the farm bill passed in November 2025 and extended the 2018 farm bill through FY2026 and crop year 2026 (P.L. 119-37, Division E, §5002). The Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 (H.R. 7567) would add, amend, and reauthorize some of the programs in the 2018 farm bill. H.R. 7567 was introduced on February 13, 2026. The House Committee on Agriculture considered the bill and ordered it reported favorably, as amended, to the House on March 5, 2026, by a vote of 34-17. This report provides a summary of each title included in H.R. 7567, as amended and ordered reported. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) relied on House Rules Committee Print 119-22, which reflects the introduced version of H.R. 7567 with the House Committee on Agriculture’s adopted amendments. Following the summary of each of the 12 titles included in H.R. 7567, this report includes tables describing each provision in the bill and provides a direct comparison of these provisions to current law. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a score of H.R. 7567, as introduced, on February 20, 2026, ahead of the House Committee on Agriculture markup. The score indicates that the bill would be budget neutral for mandatory (direct) spending over an 11-year budget window (FY2026-FY2036). In the shorter term, it is expected to increase mandatory spending by $162 million over the first six years (FY2026-FY2031). Across Titles I through XII, H.R. 7567 would reauthorize and amend food and agricultural policies in a wide variety of ways, including the following examples. Title 1 of H.R. 7567 … | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R48918/R48918.3.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/HTML/R48918.html |
| IN12683 | The FY2027 Mandatory Spending Sequester | 2026-04-27T04:00:00Z | 2026-04-28T12:24:17Z | Active | Posts | Drew C. Aherne | On April 3, 2026, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) submitted its report on the FY2027 mandatory sequester to Congress. On the same day, President Trump issued a sequestration order directing agencies to implement the reductions estimated in OMB’s report. OMB estimates that a total of $1.54 trillion in mandatory budgetary resources across 260 individual accounts will be subject to reductions under the FY2027 mandatory sequester. This includes $35.32 billion in mandatory budgetary resources in the defense category, $1.37 trillion for Medicare and certain other health programs, and $139.14 billion for other nondefense accounts. Current law requires OMB to determine required reductions for FY2027 by applying the following sequestration percentages to nonexempt accounts in each category: 8.3% for defense; 2% for Medicare and certain other health programs; and 5.7% for other nondefense accounts. Applying these percentages for FY2027, OMB estimates reductions totaling $38.24 billion—including reductions of $2.93 billion in the defense category, $27.37 billion for Medicare and certain other health programs, and $7.93 billion to other nondefense accounts. Most reductions under the FY2027 mandatory sequester will begin on October 1, 2026. For Medicare, reductions will begin on April 1, 2027. Table 1. FY2027 Estimated Sequestrable Resources and Reductions by Category (in billions of dollars) Spending Category Percentage Reduction Estimated Sequestrable Resources Estimated Reduction Defense 8.3% $35.320 $2.932 Medicare and certain other health programs 2.0% $1,368.659 $27.373 Other nondefense 5.7% $139.140 $7.931 Total — $1,543.119 $38.236 Source: OMB, OMB Report to the Congress on the BBEDCA 251A Sequestration for Fiscal Year 2027, April 3, 2026, p. 4. The Appendix of OMB’s report details estimated reductions required for each nonexempt budget account. These reductions are required to be applied equally to all programs, projects, and activities within affected accounts. In his letter accompanying the re… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IN/PDF/IN12683/IN12683.1.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IN/HTML/IN12683.html | |
| IF13208 | Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Non-Detained Docket (NDD) | 2026-04-24T04:00:00Z | 2026-04-28T15:38:05Z | Active | Resources | William A. Kandel, Audrey Singer | Background The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA, Title 8 of the U.S. Code) authorizes and sometimes requires the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to detain aliens (foreign nationals) who are subject to removal from the United States. This authority allows DHS to detain aliens who pose a threat to public safety, ensures that such individuals appear at immigration removal hearings, and permits DHS to remove an individual more effectively after an order of removal has been issued. Detained aliens represent what is known as the detained docket. However, DHS has broad discretion to release from custody those aliens who are not subject to mandatory detention or do not pose a threat or flight risk. These individuals represent the non-detained docket (NDD). Supervision of aliens on the detained and the non-detained dockets is the responsibility of Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) within DHS’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). ERO may arrest any alien who is believed to have violated U.S. immigration laws and remove any alien who has received a final removal order. The INA generally requires detention for applicants for admission who are removable, aliens removable on specified criminal and terrorist-related grounds, and those with final removal orders. The INA also grants DHS discretion to either detain or release from custody all other aliens in pending removal proceedings. After ICE arrests an alien not subject to mandatory detention, an immigration officer makes an initial custody determination and may make further determinations during the course of formal removal proceedings, based on standards and criteria promulgated by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). Aliens may be detained in an ICE facility or released on bond or conditional parole; these individuals become part of the NDD. In any case, aliens must attend all subsequent proceedings before an immigration judge (IJ) within DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). Detained aliens may request a review of the custody… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF13208/IF13208.2.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/HTML/IF13208.html | |
| R48933 | Electricity Distribution Transformers: Supply, Tariffs, and Policy Options | 2026-04-23T04:00:00Z | 2026-05-02T05:54:01Z | Active | Reports | Martin C. Offutt | Supply of electricity distribution transformers essential to the electric power grid has been strained in the last few years, with implications for post-disaster recovery and plans for grid expansion. Distribution transformers are located near the service connection with residences and commercial buildings or on industrial sites. The price of transformers has increased sharply since 2020, with data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics reporting the prices of both distribution transformers and large power transformers to have risen roughly 40% from 2020 to 2024 (inflation-adjusted). Coupled with the rise in prices is an increase in the time needed for suppliers to fulfill orders for distribution transformers. According to a February 2024 report by the National Laboratory of the Rockies (NLR), orders are reportedly taking two years to be fulfilled, a fourfold increase compared to pre-2022. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) identified 34 original equipment manufacturers in the U.S. market for distribution transformers as of April 2024. They also estimated that 1.5 million units were shipped in 2021. An industry report from 2024 estimated it would take three to five years before sufficient new manufacturing capacity might become operational and alleviate supply issues. NLR estimates roughly half of distribution transformers are over 33 years old and nearing the end of their useful life. The U.S. electric power grid transmission expands at roughly 1% per year, and in 2023, roughly one-third of grid investments went toward distribution infrastructure, implying a need for additional distribution transformers. The United States imports 25% to 30% of distribution transformers chiefly from Taiwan, Canada, and Mexico. Some domestic transformers are made using imported components such as the electrical core that facilitates the crucial voltage transformation, of which between half and three-quarters are imported for incorporation into assembled domestic transformers. Those cores that are instead made domestically obtain 9… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R48933/R48933.1.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/HTML/R48933.html | |
| R48916 | Retailer Inventory and Pricing Behavior During Supply Chain Disruptions | 2026-04-23T04:00:00Z | 2026-04-25T13:37:57Z | Active | Reports | Michael Alan Havlin, Clare Y. Cho | Recent supply chain disruptions have contributed to price increases for certain consumer goods, such as vehicles, groceries, apparel, and consumer electronics. Congress has expressed interest in various types of retailers that sell these consumer goods, particularly after their profits and prices have increased following supply chain disruptions. Retailers provide services to producers and consumers and charge a price for their services. One of their main services is inventory management. That is, retailers acquire, hold, and maintain goods that are for sale to consumers. A retailer’s inventory management can affect its pricing behavior, particularly during supply chain disruptions. For example, if supply chain disruptions prevent a retailer from acquiring new inventory, the retailer might choose to increase prices to potentially increase its profits, avoid selling out of a product, or both. The price of a retail service is typically the markup charged on the product—the difference between the amount a retailer pays the supplier and the amount the retailer charges the consumer. The size of a markup may vary with time, retailer type, and a variety of competitive and contextual factors. Retailer behavior can affect how supply chain disruptions transmit down to the consumer. Retailers’ responses to such events may vary by the type of retailer, type of disruption, and a variety of contextual factors, such as inventory levels, competition, retail pricing strategies, and information access. Because of these factors, changes in markups and consumer prices are not uniformly driven by supplier price changes. Retailers might increase, decrease, or maintain their markups following changes in supplier pricing. During the Great Recession, vehicle dealerships paid higher prices to manufacturers that faced tightening financial constraints but did not pass those higher costs on to consumers. In contrast, during the COVID-19 pandemic, vehicle dealerships increased markups while experiencing record low vehicle inventories. As ano… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R48916/R48916.2.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/HTML/R48916.html | |
| R48915 | Preemption and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) | 2026-04-23T04:00:00Z | 2026-04-24T11:09:05Z | Active | Reports | Wen W. Shen, Dorothy C. Kafka | Federal Preemption, Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) | First enacted in 1938, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), as amended, empowers the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to regulate various products affecting public health, including food, drugs, medical devices, cosmetics, and tobacco products. By FDA’s estimate, the products it oversees in 2025 were valued at $4.1 trillion and accounted for about 21 cents of every dollar spent by U.S. consumers. In general, the FD&C Act prohibits the distribution of a covered product in interstate commerce that is “adulterated” or “misbranded,” and defines, for each product type, the circumstances and standards under which that product is “adulterated” or “misbranded.” Additional statutory or regulatory provisions often further refine the specific federal requirements that apply to specific subsets or components of a product type. Some subsets of drugs, devices, and tobacco products, for instance, must be reviewed by FDA before they can be lawfully marketed, while food and cosmetic products (with the exception of certain ingredients) generally are not subject to premarket review. States have historically regulated many products covered by the FD&C Act based on their general police power to provide for the public health and safety of their residents. State regulation of such products might include statutes specific to certain products, along with more general consumer protection and products liability laws. State consumer protection and products liability laws provide mechanisms by which consumers allegedly injured by a relevant product may challenge the product’s promotion, manufacture, design, and/or warning, on the grounds that the defendant manufacturers should have taken a different course of action with respect to those activities—some of which may be regulated by the FD&C Act and its implementing regulations. Under the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, federal law supersedes (preempts) conflicting state law and can do so expressly—through explicit preemption provisions specifying the scope of preemp… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R48915/R48915.1.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/HTML/R48915.html |
| IN12682 | Kings and Queens Addressing Joint Meetings of Congress | 2026-04-23T04:00:00Z | 2026-04-25T13:52:50Z | Active | Posts | Jacob R. Straus | On April 1, 2026, Speaker of the House of Representatives Mike Johnson, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries jointly invited King Charles III of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to address a joint meeting of Congress. King Charles’s address is scheduled to occur on April 28, 2026. King Charles would be the 11th king or queen to address a joint meeting of Congress. Invitation Process When a foreign leader formally visits the United States, he or she is sometimes invited to address a joint meeting of Congress. The decision to invite a foreign leader to address Congress has historically been made by the congressional leadership, often in consultation and conjunction with the executive branch. No formal procedure on when or how to issue invitations is codified in law or in House or Senate rules. Not all foreign leaders who visit the United States are invited to address Congress. For more information on foreign leaders who have addressed Congress, see CRS In Focus IF10211, Foreign Leaders Addressing Congress, by Jacob R. Straus. Past Kings and Queens Who Have Addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress To date, 10 individuals holding the title of king or queen have addressed a joint meeting of Congress. The first address by a king or queen occurred on December 18, 1874, when King Kalakaua, from the Kingdom of Hawaii, addressed Congress. The most recent, prior to King Charles III’s scheduled address, occurred when King Abdullah II Bin Al Hussein, of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, addressed a joint meeting of Congress on March 7, 2007. Table 1 lists the monarchs that have addressed a joint meeting of Congress. Table 1. Addresses by Kings and Queens to a Joint Meeting of Congress Date Monarch Country December 18, 1874 King Kalakauaa Kingdom of Hawaii April 3, 1952 Queen Juliana Kingdom of the Netherlands May 12, 1959 King Baudouin Kingdom of Belgium April 28, 1960 King Mahendra Kingdom of Nepal June 29, 1960 King Bhu… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IN/PDF/IN12682/IN12682.2.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IN/HTML/IN12682.html | |
| IF13209 | Work Requirements: Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Rental Assistance, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) | 2026-04-23T04:00:00Z | 2026-05-01T10:30:49Z | Active | Resources | Gene Falk, Randy Alison Aussenberg, Evelyne P. Baumrucker, Patrick A. Landers, Maggie McCarty | Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Work Requirements for Social Welfare Programs, Medicaid, Medicaid & Work Requirements, Rental Assistance | Meeting health care and financial needs while preserving incentives to work is a central tension in policies related to low-income assistance. Policies to promote work vary across Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), housing assistance, and cash aid from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant. The policies differ based on the program history; the nature and design of the particular program; whether or not it has dedicated funding for employment services, education, and training; and other factors. Medicaid The FY2025 budget reconciliation law (P.L. 119-21) established a “community engagement requirement” whereby specified adults—those who are nonpregnant, nondisabled, and aged 19 through 64—in the 50 states and the District of Columbia must complete a minimum of 80 hours of qualifying activities (i.e., work, participation in a work program or community service, or enrollment in an education program) as a condition of Medicaid eligibility and continued coverage. Medicaid has no dedicated employment and training dollars (or associated work program), and thus nonemployed individuals subject to these requirements need to participate in other programs (e.g., Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act programs) to have hours in a work program counted toward the 80 hours. SNAP SNAP has several work-related requirements. Its strictest requirement is a time limit applying to nondisabled adults aged 18 to 64 either without dependents or whose youngest child is age 14 or older. Such participants are limited to receiving SNAP for 3 months in a 36-month period if they do not work or participate in a work program at least 80 hours per month. SNAP has dedicated Employment and Training (E&T) funding for states to design and implement programs. States may impose an E&T participation requirement for certain SNAP recipients. Rental Assistance Among federal rental assistance programs, public housing is the only one with a federal community engagement requirement. CRS estimates that … | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF13209/IF13209.1.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/HTML/IF13209.html |
| R48914 | Cryptocurrency Mining and the Electricity Sector | 2026-04-22T04:00:00Z | 2026-04-24T12:53:53Z | Active | Reports | Corrie E. Clark | Electricity, Energy Policy | The popularity of cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin, and their underlying blockchain technology presents both challenges and opportunities for the electricity sector. Cryptocurrency is a type of digital asset that is sometimes referred to as virtual currency. Cryptocurrency mining (“cryptomining”) is the process of validating transactions on a digital ledger and adding transactions to the ledger’s permanent record. For providing the computing power for the validations, miners are awarded some amount of cryptocurrency in return, making it a potentially lucrative endeavor. As investment in Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies has increased, the electricity demand to support cryptocurrency mining activities has also increased. The increased electricity demand—when localized—can exceed the available generation capacity. If a utility invests in a new power plant or in infrastructure upgrades to meet the increased demand, the utility might raise rates to recover the cost of those capital investments. In instances where a utility may be able to accommodate the increased electricity demand, increased sales might lead a utility to reduce rates. Not all cryptocurrencies require energy-intensive mining operations. Some cryptocurrencies, such as Ether, can operate under algorithms that require less electricity. In addition, blockchain technologies could present opportunities for the electricity sector by facilitating power and financial transactions on a smart grid. Some see an opportunity to leverage cryptocurrency mining facilities as a way to manage growth in electricity demand and to moderate wholesale power prices during times of peak demand or low generator availability. Some U.S. state governments are developing various policies in response to growth in electricity demand from cryptocurrency mining activities. Some states have considered or imposed limits on cryptomining development. Other states have offered reduced electricity rates, tax incentives, or opportunities to participate in electric load reduction programs… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R48914/R48914.2.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/HTML/R48914.html |
| R48913 | Corporate Taxation: The Revenue-Maximizing Tax Rate | 2026-04-21T04:00:00Z | 2026-04-23T15:23:00Z | Active | Reports | Jane G. Gravelle | Economists have long recognized that there are behavioral responses to the corporate tax, and that these responses have implications for the efficiency of the economy and the burden of the tax, as well as how much revenue a tax increase might raise. This report examines the research surrounding the revenue-maximizing corporate tax rate and explores implications for federal tax policy. The notion that a corporate tax cut could raise revenues (and thus “pay for itself”) was part of the debate in 2017, when the corporate tax rate was subsequently cut from 35% to 21%. A decade earlier, this issue played a much more prominent role during the corporate tax debate in 2007. Several studies appeared in 2006 and 2007 that estimated a revenue-maximizing corporate tax rate of around 30%, although one study estimated a higher rate of 56% for a large, less-open economy such as the United States. These studies used a panel of countries to determine corporate revenues as a percentage of GDP as a function of the statutory tax rate. This report examines two issues with these studies. The first is the incompatibility of the studies’ results with theoretical constraints on how low the revenue-maximizing tax rate can be. Because the pretax rate of return falls when the capital stock increases, the corporate tax base is relatively insensitive to tax reductions that increase investment. Under the most generous assumptions, theory suggests the revenue-maximizing tax rate is probably no less than 70%. Effects arising from avoidance and evasion of taxes by corporations are too small to account for a revenue-maximizing rate below the tax rates in effect before the 2017 corporate rate cut (from 35% to 21%). The second issue is an econometric one. For panel studies comparing trends, including fixed country and time effects is necessary to produce unbiased estimates. When CRS reestimated two of the most prominent studies with these fixed effects included, the results were generally statistically insignificant effects. In cases where estimat… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R48913/R48913.5.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/HTML/R48913.html | |
| IF13207 | Prediction Markets Legislation in the 119th Congress | 2026-04-21T04:00:00Z | 2026-04-23T11:07:52Z | Active | Resources | Karl E. Schneider, Alexander H. Pepper | Prediction markets are exchange platforms that specialize in offering event contracts (i.e., contracts that allow parties to trade on the occurrence or nonoccurrence of specific events). Prediction markets have rapidly expanded in recent years, facilitated by judicial decisions and changes in regulatory posture, with significant growth in the subject matter of available contracts, including geopolitical events, elections, and sports. The expansion into sports since early 2025 has led to conflict and litigation between prediction markets and state regulators overseeing traditional sports gambling. Certain well-timed trades related to government action have also sparked concern that government officials or others with access to material nonpublic information may use that information for private gain through prediction market trading. Some prediction markets, such as Kalshi, are exchanges registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Others, such as Polymarket’s international exchange, are not domiciled in the United States and claim to block U.S. users. Congress has taken an interest in prediction markets. This In Focus summarizes some of the most pertinent federal law applicable to prediction markets as well as legislation introduced in the 119th Congress that would amend existing law to restrict trading of event contracts involving certain subject matter and regulate trading in prediction markets by certain officials. Within each heading, bills are listed by date of introduction. Prohibitions Based on Subject Matter Under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), exchanges registered with the CFTC may self-certify that certain event contracts comply with the Act and CFTC regulations and list them without prior CFTC approval. Section 5c(c)(5)(C) of the CEA—often called the “Special Rule”—gives the CFTC authority, however, to determine that event contracts are contrary to the public interest if they involve activity that is unlawful under federal or state law, terrorism, assassination, war, gaming, or ot… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF13207/IF13207.1.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/HTML/IF13207.html | |
| LSB11422 | Parental Rights and Student Gender Transitions at School: Legal Developments | 2026-04-20T04:00:00Z | 2026-04-22T11:38:16Z | Active | Posts | Jared P. Cole, Whitney K. Novak | First Amendment, Free Exercise Clause, Jurisprudence, Privacy, School & Campus Safety, Civil Rights & Liberties, Due Process Clause, Family Education Rights & Privacy Act (FERPA) | How public schools should treat transgender students has generated substantial debate, raising legal questions in contexts such as bathroom access, athletics participation, and pronoun usage. One particular area of legal disagreement concerns whether public schools must notify parents when a minor student seeks to transition their gender at school. This question may involve various considerations, including the rights of parents to control the upbringing of their children and freely exercise their religious beliefs, how those rights should apply in the public-school context, and potentially countervailing considerations about a student’s autonomy, privacy, and the risk of parental abuse. States and school districts have different rules regarding whether parents must be notified when students experience gender dysphoria and/or pursue gender transition. For instance, some states have passed laws requiring schools to affirmatively disclose to parents when a minor requests a change in pronouns used to identify the student. By contrast, a number of public schools in other states have implemented policies prohibiting disclosure of a student’s gender identity to parents without the student’s consent. Some parents have sued school districts that have implemented these latter policies, arguing that denying parents access to critical information about their children violates their constitutional rights. A recent Supreme Court decision on the matter, issued pursuant to its “emergency docket,” will likely inform how courts examine these questions going forward. In Mirabelli v. Bonta, the Supreme Court partially reinstated a district court’s injunction against California’s policies that prohibit public schools from informing parents about their children’s gender transition at school absent the child’s consent. In a per curiam decision, the Court concluded that the parents were likely to succeed on the merits of their constitutional claims and that denial of those constitutional rights during the litigation process would cau… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/PDF/LSB11422/LSB11422.1.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/HTML/LSB11422.html |
| LSB11421 | ESA “God Squad” Exemption for Gulf Oil and Gas Activities: Background and Current Litigation | 2026-04-20T04:00:00Z | 2026-04-23T12:08:02Z | Active | Posts | Cassandra J. Barnum, Erin H. Ward | Energy Policy, Environmental Review & Policy, Oil, Fossil Energy, Judicial Branch, Endangered Species Act (ESA) Policy & Programs | On March 31, 2026, the Endangered Species Committee—colloquially referred to as the “God Squad” because of its power to determine the fate of species—voted to grant an exemption from Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544) agency consultation requirements for oil and gas leasing activity in the Gulf of Mexico. This was the first time such an exemption had been granted in more than 30 years, when the Committee last convened in 1992, and the first exemption ever sought or granted for reasons of national security. This Legal Sidebar describes the ESA framework for consultation and exemption therefrom, as well as the ensuing litigation surrounding threats to endangered species, such as the Rice’s whale, from Gulf oil and gas development. Exemptions from ESA Section 7 Section 7 of the ESA requires all federal agencies to use their authorities to conserve threatened and endangered species (i.e., listed species) and to limit harmful effects on listed species or their critical habitat. To ensure such effects are considered and mitigated, the statute prescribes a consultation process—referred to as Section 7 consultation—through which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and/or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (together, the Services) assess the effects of federal agencies’ proposed actions and identify ways to mitigate those effects. This process may result in the agency changing its proposed action, or deciding not to proceed with the action. In some rare cases, the agency may seek to move forward with an action that would otherwise violate Section 7. For such cases, the statute provides an exemption process, which was added to the statute in 1978 after the listing of the snail darter halted construction on the Tellico Dam Project. Section 7 Consultation Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires federal agencies to ensure their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or adversely modify or destroy critical habitat designated for listed species. This requirement applies to … | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/PDF/LSB11421/LSB11421.1.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/HTML/LSB11421.html |
| LSB11420 | Congressional Court Watcher: Circuit Splits from March 2026 | 2026-04-20T04:00:00Z | 2026-04-21T11:09:01Z | Active | Posts | Michael John Garcia, Alexander H. Pepper | The U.S. Courts of Appeals for the thirteen “circuits” issue thousands of precedential decisions each year. Because relatively few of these decisions are ultimately reviewed by the Supreme Court, the U.S. Courts of Appeals are often the last word on consequential legal questions. The federal appellate courts sometimes reach different conclusions on the same issue of federal law, causing a “split” among the circuits that leads to the nonuniform application of federal law among similarly situated litigants. This Legal Sidebar discusses circuit splits that emerged or widened following decisions from March 2026 on matters relevant to Congress. The Sidebar does not address every circuit split that developed or widened during this period. Selected cases typically involve judicial disagreement over the interpretation or validity of federal statutes and regulations, or constitutional issues relevant to Congress’s lawmaking and oversight functions. The Sidebar includes only cases where an appellate court’s controlling opinion recognizes a split among the circuits on a key legal issue resolved in the opinion. This Sidebar refers to each U.S. Court of Appeals by its number or descriptor (e.g., “D.C. Circuit” for “U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit”). Some cases identified in this Sidebar, or the legal questions they address, are examined in other CRS general distribution products. Members of Congress and congressional staff may click here to subscribe to the CRS Legal Update and receive regular notifications of new products and upcoming seminars by CRS attorneys. Civil Rights: The Eleventh Circuit held that qualified immunity depends on whether a defendant’s conduct violates clearly established law; qualified immunity, the court held, is not affected by uncertainty over whether the defendant can be held personally liable for that conduct. Defendant school administrators allegedly failed to implement a settlement agreement between a former employee and their school district because of racial animus. The Eleventh Circ… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/PDF/LSB11420/LSB11420.1.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/HTML/LSB11420.html | |
| IN12681 | Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Response to a Raw Dairy Toxic E. coli Outbreak | 2026-04-20T04:00:00Z | 2026-04-21T15:53:11Z | Active | Posts | Laura Pineda-Bermudez | Introduction On March 15, 2026, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS’s) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and certain state public health officials announced an investigation into a multistate outbreak of toxic E. coli O157:H7 infections linked to raw (unpasteurized) cheese and milk sold by RAW FARM, LLC (Raw Farm). The investigation confirmed nine E. coli cases in three states between September 2025 and February 2026, with the majority of illnesses occurring in children under five. On April 2, 2026, after initially refusing, Raw Farm voluntarily recalled certain raw cheddar cheese products and stated it “disputes being the cause of this outbreak.” Raw Farm, the largest raw milk farm in the country, reported that this recall impacted approximately $1.5 million of its product. The farm was identified by CDC and FDA as the likely source of a similar 2024 E. coli outbreak. According to CDC, children under five, adults 65 and older, and people with compromised immune systems are at a higher risk of becoming ill with a toxic E. coli infection, which can cause serious health conditions. Raw dairy products, compared with pasteurized products, generally are associated with a higher risk of foodborne illness, including E. coli infection. Food Recalls Foods may be recalled from the market for various reasons, including labeling errors, possible microbial contamination, or the presence of health hazards that could result in serious impacts or death. If a potentially unsafe food is identified during a foodborne illness investigation, the food producer may recall it voluntarily. Voluntary recalls may be initiated at any time by the producer or at FDA’s request (under certain conditions). If the producer does not voluntarily recall the product (a rare occurrence), FDA has statutory authority to order a recall when deemed necessary to protect public health. Congress gave FDA mandatory recall authority for foods (excluding infant formula) in the FDA Food Saf… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IN/PDF/IN12681/IN12681.2.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IN/HTML/IN12681.html | |
| IF13206 | Judiciary Budget Request for FY2027 | 2026-04-20T04:00:00Z | 2026-04-22T11:08:48Z | Active | Resources | Barry J. McMillion | Overview The federal judiciary’s FY2027 budget request was made public by the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts on March 25, 2026. The request seeks $9.7 billion in discretionary funding (an increase of 4.9% over the FY2026 enacted level), as well as $826.5 million in mandatory appropriations for judicial salaries and judicial retirement funds. The judiciary also uses non-appropriated funds to offset its appropriations requirement. The majority of these non-appropriated funds are derived from the collection of fees, primarily court filing fees. The judiciary’s annual appropriations request reflects the net needs of the judiciary after the use of non-appropriated funds. Congress typically includes appropriations for the judiciary in the Financial Services and General Government (FSGG) Appropriations bill. Table 1 presents the FY2026 discretionary enacted level and the FY2027 discretionary request for each account that is part of the judiciary’s budget request. Individual Accounts Supreme Court The total FY2027 discretionary request for the Supreme Court, $225.1 million, is contained in two accounts: (1) Salaries and Expenses ($207.0 million) and (2) Care of the Building and Grounds ($18.1 million). The total represents a 29.0% increase over the FY2026 enacted level (which includes supplemental funding enacted in P.L. 119-37). The FY2026 enacted amount reported in Table 1 does not include additional supplemental funding of $30 million included in H.R. 7147, which has not been enacted as of this writing. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit This court, consisting of 12 judges, exercises jurisdiction over certain lower court rulings on patents and trademarks, international trade, and federal claims cases. The FY2027 discretionary budget request is $38.7 million, an increase of 5.4% over the FY2026 enacted level. U.S. Court of International Trade This court has exclusive nationwide jurisdiction over civil actions against the United States, its agencies, and its officers, and certain civil actions brought b… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF13206/IF13206.2.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/HTML/IF13206.html | |
| R48911 | Social Security Administration (SSA) Staffing Levels by State or Area: Data Brief | 2026-04-17T04:00:00Z | 2026-04-18T05:08:24Z | Active | Reports | William R. Morton | The Social Security Administration (SSA) is an independent agency in the executive branch headed by the commissioner of Social Security. It is responsible for administering Social Security and Supplemental Security Income, which are the nation’s primary income support programs for older adults and individuals with disabilities. SSA is also responsible for supporting the administration of a number of non-SSA programs and activities, such as portions of Medicare. In FY2025, SSA employed about 52,000 federal workers and funded about 13,700 state disability determination services (DDS) employees to carry out its programs and other administrative responsibilities. The agency operates about 1,500 offices across the country and around the world. SSA is headquartered in Woodlawn, MD, outside of Baltimore. This report provides data on SSA’s staffing levels (including state DDS staffing levels) by state or area. | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R48911/R48911.1.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/HTML/R48911.html | |
| R48912 | Child Welfare Funding in the President’s FY2027 Budget: In Brief | 2026-04-16T04:00:00Z | 2026-04-23T12:07:59Z | Active | Reports | Emilie Stoltzfus | Child Welfare, Labor, HHS & Education Appropriations | The President’s FY2027 budget requests $11.619 billion in federal child welfare spending under the child welfare authorities included in Title IV-E (Payments for Foster Care, Prevention, and Permanency) and Title IV-B (Child and Family Services) of the Social Security Act (SSA), the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), Adoption Opportunities, and the Victims of Child Abuse Act (VCAA). Comparable funding is expected to be $11.662 billion for FY2026, and was $11.319 billion for FY2025. Federal child welfare programs are generally administered by the Children’s Bureau, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF). The three competitive grant programs included in the VCAA, however, are administered by the Office of Justice Programs, within the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). The FY2027 budget documents do not include any proposals to amend federal child welfare program law, and funding requested for mandatory programs is provided based on current law only. At the same time, a message from the ACF Assistant Secretary, which is included in the agency’s budget justifications, states that the budget “advances the Administration’s commitment to child welfare through the implementation of the Fostering the Future for American Children and Families Executive Order.” It also notes that ACF will continue to lead its “A Home for Every Child Initiative.” The budget request explicitly provides that Title IV-E funding will support several activities that are aligned with the Fostering the Future executive order. These include promoting modernization of child welfare information systems; expanded use of “technological solutions,” such as predictive analytics and artificial intelligence; clearer state child welfare performance metrics and evaluation and related public data; and more easily accessed supports and services for youth transitioning from foster care to adulthood. In addition, it seeks a general provision in the annual appropriations… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R48912/R48912.3.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/HTML/R48912.html |
| R48910 | Trump Accounts: Overview and Policy Considerations | 2026-04-16T04:00:00Z | 2026-04-18T05:08:52Z | Active | Reports | Brendan McDermott | Poverty Reduction Tax Policy, Individual Tax, Savings & Investment Tax Policy, Tax Reform | Trump Accounts are a new form of traditional individual retirement account (IRA) that the 2025 reconciliation law (P.L. 119-21) created for the benefit of children. Savers will be able to contribute to Trump Accounts starting on July 4, 2026. Traditional IRAs are typically tax-advantaged accounts for individuals who have income from work to save for retirement. Trump Accounts differ from other traditional IRAs in that they have special rules, described below, that apply prior to the start of the year in which a beneficiary reaches the age of 18 (i.e., during the account’s growth period). Contributions to Trump Accounts are allowed from several sources. Anyone can contribute to a child’s Trump Account, although individual contributions during the growth period are not tax-deductible for either the contributor or the beneficiary. Employers can contribute up to $2,500 (adjusted for inflation after 2027) tax-free to the Trump Accounts of employees or their dependents (amount is per employee, per year). Tax-free contributions are also allowed from state or local governments and from 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations, provided the state, locality, or organization contributes an equal amount to the account of each child in a qualified group of either (1) all children, (2) all children in a certain geographic area, or (3) all children born in one or more calendar years. Contributions during the growth period are generally subject to an annual combined limit of $5,000 in 2026 (adjusted for inflation after 2027), which is lower than the traditional IRA limit ($7,500 in 2026). Contributions during the growth period are not limited to the beneficiary’s taxable compensation (as is the case for other traditional IRAs), making saving viable for children with little or no income of their own. During the growth period, beneficiaries cannot deduct contributions from their taxable income, whether those contributions are made by themselves or by others. Any income earned within the account (e.g., investment earnings) will not be … | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R48910/R48910.2.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/HTML/R48910.html |
| IF13205 | The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS): FY2027 Budget Request | 2026-04-16T04:00:00Z | 2026-04-17T13:23:35Z | Active | Resources | Anna E. Normand | Background The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in the Department of the Interior (DOI), provides scientific information to support the management of water, energy, mineral, ecosystem, and land resources and to mitigate risks from natural hazards. The USGS also collects long-term data to understand and report on the Earth’s geologic and ecosystem processes, using satellite imagery, mapping, and ground-based instruments. The USGS is not a regulatory agency and does not manage federal lands. Congress created the USGS in 1879 in the USGS Organic Act (43 U.S.C. §31). The USGS Organic Act defined the initial scope of the USGS: [The Director of the USGS] shall have the direction of the United States Geological Survey, and the classification of the public lands and examination of the geological structure, mineral resources, and products of the national domain. Since then, Congress has expanded the USGS’s statutory authority to “such examinations outside the national domain where determined by the Secretary [of the Interior] to be in the national interest.” Under this authority and additional congressional direction, the USGS now also conducts activities related to water resources, ecosystems, and natural hazards that span the globe. The USGS performs scientific activities under interdisciplinary mission areas, and each mission area has its own budget line. The USGS also has budget lines for Science Support (administrative activities and information) and Facilities. Congress typically provides discretionary appropriations for the USGS under its Surveys, Investigations, and Research account in annual Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations acts. FY2027 Budget Request President Trump’s FY2027 budget request for the USGS is $892.7 million. The request is $527.8 million less (-37%) than the FY2026 enacted annual appropriation of $1.420 billion provided by Division C of P.L. 119-74 (Figure 1). The USGS budget request “emphasizes science supporting energy and mineral independence and security, including the … | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF13205/IF13205.1.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/HTML/IF13205.html | |
| IF13204 | China’s 15th Five-Year Plan: S&T and Economic Priorities | 2026-04-16T04:00:00Z | 2026-04-16T10:38:30Z | Active | Resources | Karen M. Sutter | East Asia, Science & Technology, Trade & International Finance, International Financial Markets | On March 12, 2026, the legislature of the People’s Republic of China (PRC or China) approved China’s 15th Five-Year Plan for National Economic and Social Development (FYP) (2025-2030) and the Outline of Long-Term Goals to 2035. The plan received previous input and approval from the Communist Party of China’s apex institution—the Central Committee. The 15th FYP is a high-level national document that sets policy priorities and approaches—particularly in economics and science and technology (S&T)—for the next five years. This framework informs other PRC economic, industrial, S&T, and foreign trade and investment policies; and it guides PRC government and corporate strategies and activities at the national, local, and global level. The FYP reflects PRC leaders’ emphasis on establishing China’s global economic and S&T leadership and independence. The industries, projects, and technologies featured in the plan reflect co-developed PRC civilian and military priorities that are to receive preferential financial and policy support. See CRS In Focus IF11684, China’s 14th Five-Year Plan: A First Look; and CRS In Focus IF10964, Made in China 2025 and Industrial Policies: Issues for Congress. S&T Independence and Leadership The 15th FYP calls for “extraordinary measures” to reduce China’s reliance on foreign S&T and strengthen China’s S&T self-reliance and independent innovation capacity. It reinforces “indigenous” innovation as the core driver of China’s development, a direction that PRC leaders first set in 2006. PRC “indigenous” innovation can involve the acquisition of foreign technologies that are then adapted and rebranded as PRC capabilities; the PRC uses foreign commercial and research ties to fill capability gaps in advancing national goals. The FYP focuses on boosting PRC capabilities to build self-reliance in areas in which China currently depends on the United States, Europe, and Japan, including aircraft; agriculture; advanced equipment, instruments, and tools; energy; gas turbines; software; and semiconductors … | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF13204/IF13204.1.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/HTML/IF13204.html |
| R48908 | The U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service: Overview and Reform Proposals | 2026-04-15T04:00:00Z | 2026-04-16T10:53:28Z | Active | Reports | Shayerah I. Akhtar, Rebecca M. Nelson | Export Policy, Foreign Policy Institutions & Tools | The U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service (USFCS)FCS is a network of trade and industry specialists that supports U.S. companies looking to enter foreign markets and expand overseas. It is part of the International Trade Administration (ITA) at the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce). U.S. government programs supporting U.S. businesses overseas have generated debate. Proponents maintain that such programs support U.S. jobs and advance U.S. national security, including by countering the global influence of the People’s Republic of China (PRC, or China). Skeptics argue that these programs are government subsidies that distort markets and favor politically connected firms. During the 119th Congress, Members have considered changes to the USFCS budget and structure and conducted oversight of its operations. For example, legislation has been introduced that would establish regional and sectoral priorities for the USFCS; and would move the USFCS and related programs to the State Department. The Trump Administration proposed cutting the USFCS budget in FY2026 by nearly half compared to FY2024. Congress did not enact the proposed cuts, and the forthcoming FY2027 budget request could renew debates about the budget. This report provides information about the USFCS and analyzes potential reforms options. Commercial Service (CS) Foreign Commercial Service (FCS) U.S. Field U.S. export assistance centers (USEACs) | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R48908/R48908.1.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/HTML/R48908.html |
| R48907 | Military Discharges: Character of Service and Eligibility for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Benefits | 2026-04-15T04:00:00Z | 2026-04-16T10:53:27Z | Active | Reports | Madeline E. Moreno, Kristy N. Kamarck, Daniel T. Shedd, Jared S. Sussman | Health Care, Military Personnel, Military Personnel, Compensation & Health Care, Veterans & Military Health Care, Veterans Disability Compensation & Pensions | Character of service refers to the Armed Forces’ evaluation of servicemembers’ conduct during their service. Generally, there are five statuses under which servicemembers can be discharged: honorable, general (under honorable conditions), other than honorable (OTH), bad conduct, or dishonorable discharge. A servicemember’s branch determines which discharge status he or she should be given. If a former servicemember believes there is an error in his or her service records or disagrees with the discharge status assigned, he or she may seek a discharge status upgrade by submitting an application to the appropriate Discharge Review Board (DRB) or Board for Correction of Military Records (BCMR). On occasion, Congress has enacted laws affecting review conducted by these military correction boards. In 2010, Congress enacted the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) Repeal Act (P.L. 111-321), which initiated the removal of restrictions on gay servicemembers. Pursuant to the DADT repeal, the Department of Defense issued guidance instructing the military review boards to grant approval of requests to change narrative reasons for discharge, characterizations of discharge, and reentry codes for former servicemembers if (1) the original discharge was based solely on DADT and (2) there are no aggravating factors in the record, such as misconduct. Further, federal law provides that military correction boards shall give liberal consideration to discharge reviews in which mental health conditions typically associated with combat operations may have been factors in the original discharge decisions. This liberal consideration equally applies when sexual assault or harassment caused the applicable mental health conditions. A servicemember’s discharge status affects his or her eligibility for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits, including disability compensation, certain pension programs, and medical care. For most VA benefits, former servicemembers must meet the statutory definition of veteran, which includes basic eligibility requ… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R48907/R48907.1.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/HTML/R48907.html |
| R48906 | Inflation Reduction Act Methane Emissions Charge: Overview and Considerations for Policymakers | 2026-04-15T04:00:00Z | 2026-04-16T10:23:13Z | Active | Reports | Jonathan L. Ramseur | On August 16, 2022, President Biden signed H.R. 5376 (P.L. 117-169), a budget reconciliation measure commonly referred to as the “Inflation Reduction Act of 2022” (IRA). Among other provisions, IRA amended the Clean Air Act (CAA) by adding Section 136. Section 136 directs the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to impose and collect a “waste emissions charge” (WEC) for methane emissions from specific types of facilities that are required to report their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to the EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reporting Program (GHGRP). This charge is the first time the federal government has directly imposed a charge, fee, or tax on GHG emissions. Since its inception, the methane charge has received considerable attention from some Members of Congress and a range of stakeholders. Some policymakers have raised concerns about economic impacts resulting from the methane charge, including impacts on natural gas prices. Some policymakers are concerned about the charge in the context of EPA regulations to address methane emissions from the same categories of new and existing facilities. Others point out that methane mitigation could be a key component of U.S. climate policy due to methane’s shorter-term climate impacts compared to other GHGs. On November 18, 2024, EPA issued a final rulemaking to implement the WEC. EPA’s WEC rulemaking received attention under the Congressional Review Act (CRA). In February 2025, both the House and the Senate passed a joint resolution (H.J.Res. 35) disapproving of EPA’s WEC rule. President Trump signed the measure on March 14, 2025, enacting the resolution (P.L. 119-2). The CRA disapproval does not alter the statutory requirements of CAA Section 136 that direct EPA to implement the WEC. Accordingly, EPA may have to determine how to comply with Section 136 without adopting a rule that is substantially the same as the disapproved rule in violation of the CRA. In the 119th Congress, P.L. 119-21, a budget reconciliation measure sometimes known as the “One Big Beautiful … | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R48906/R48906.1.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/HTML/R48906.html | |
| LSB11419 | Election Law and the Supreme Court in 2026: Pending Cases on Redistricting, Campaign Finance, and Mail-In Ballots | 2026-04-15T04:00:00Z | 2026-04-16T10:53:27Z | Active | Posts | L. Paige Whitaker | As the November 2026 congressional elections approach, three cases addressing various aspects of election law are pending at the U.S. Supreme Court. In Louisiana v. Callais, the Court is considering the constitutionality of a state creating a second majority-minority congressional district to comply with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended (VRA). In National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) v. Federal Election Commission (FEC), the Court is evaluating the constitutionality of the federal limits on coordinated political party expenditures. In Watson v. Republican National Committee (RNC), the Court is considering whether the federal laws establishing Election Day preempt a state law that permits the counting of mail-in ballots that are cast by Election Day but received afterward. The Court is expected to issue rulings in these cases by the end of June or early July. Depending on the timing and the contours of the Court’s rulings, these cases could affect the 2026 congressional elections or future federal elections. These cases may also be of interest to Congress because they each involve federal statutes. Within the bounds of the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, Congress has the authority to amend the federal statutes underlying each of the three pending cases. This Legal Sidebar provides an overview of these three pending election law cases, listed alphabetically by case name, and briefly addresses considerations for Congress. Louisiana v. Callais: Redistricting and the Voting Rights Act In Louisiana v. Callais, the Supreme Court is considering whether a state’s “intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district” to comply with Section 2 of the VRA violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution. Callais is the latest, and possibly most consequential, in a line of recent Supreme Court cases that has involved Section 2. Although the Fifteenth Amendment was ratified in 1870, Congress enacted the VRA to achieve its goal of bringing “an end t… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/PDF/LSB11419/LSB11419.2.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/HTML/LSB11419.html | |
| LSB11418 | Recent Developments in Hart-Scott-Rodino Merger Review | 2026-04-15T04:00:00Z | 2026-04-16T10:53:08Z | Active | Posts | Alexander H. Pepper, Jay B. Sykes | The Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (the HSR Act) requires parties to mergers and acquisitions that exceed certain size thresholds to file a notification with the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and abide by a waiting period before closing their deals. The purpose of this requirement is to give the DOJ and FTC the opportunity to decide whether to challenge deals while the merging parties remain separate entities, potentially avoiding harms that result from the consummation of anticompetitive transactions and the complications that may accompany the unwinding of completed mergers. In recent years, the DOJ and FTC have sought to update the HSR reporting requirements. In 2024, the FTC, with the concurrence of the DOJ, adopted a final rule expanding the types of information that merging parties must include in their HSR notifications. A federal district court vacated that rule in February 2026, holding that it exceeds the FTC’s authority under the HSR Act and constitutes arbitrary and capricious action that violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). While the FTC has appealed that decision, the antitrust agencies have also requested public comment on other possible changes to the HSR reporting requirements. In the request, the FTC indicates that it is considering engaging in a new rulemaking process to modify the HSR requirements “[r]egardless of the outcome of the pending appeal.” This Legal Sidebar discusses the litigation over the FTC’s 2024 changes to the HSR regime, the FTC’s request for comments on other possible HSR changes, and the topic of HSR reform more generally. Background Section 7 of the Clayton Antitrust Act prohibits mergers or acquisitions that may “substantially . . . lessen competition, or . . . tend to create a monopoly.” The DOJ and FTC (the Agencies) have largely overlapping jurisdiction to enforce this prohibition. Congress intended the Clayton Act’s prohibition of anticompetitive mergers “to arrest the creation of trusts, conspiraci… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/PDF/LSB11418/LSB11418.1.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/HTML/LSB11418.html | |
| IF13203 | U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: FY2027 Budget Request | 2026-04-15T04:00:00Z | 2026-04-16T10:53:09Z | Active | Resources | Eric P. Nardi | Introduction The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), an agency within the Department of the Interior (DOI), has a mission to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats. Congress funds FWS through discretionary and mandatory appropriations. FWS discretionary appropriations typically are included in annual Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Acts. Discretionary appropriations fund many activities, such as resource management and conservation, construction projects, and payments and grants to states and other entities. This In Focus addresses FY2027 annual discretionary funding for FWS as proposed in the Trump Administration budget request. Selected issues for Congress include determining the amount of annual funding for FWS accounts and activities, the conditions of such funding, and whether to enact related Trump Administration proposals. FWS sometimes receives supplemental discretionary funding in addition to annual discretionary appropriations. For example, in recent years Congress has provided additional discretionary appropriations to FWS in budget reconciliation measures. Further, FWS receives mandatory (permanent) appropriations under various statutes. The Administration estimated $1.94 billion in FWS mandatory appropriations for FY2027. FWS Discretionary Appropriations Since FY2018, FWS received an average of $1.86 billion in discretionary funding (adjusted to 2025 dollars; see Figure 1). Funding for FWS has traditionally been spread across eight discretionary appropriations accounts (Table 1). For FY2027, the Administration requested $1.33 billion in discretionary funding for FWS. The FY2027 request was $323.2 million below (-20%) the FY2026 enacted amount of $1.65 billion, in P.L. 119-74, Division C. The FY2027 funding request included no discretionary appropriations for five FWS accounts: Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund, National Wildlife Refuge Fund, Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, Multinational… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF13203/IF13203.1.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/HTML/IF13203.html | |
| R48909 | Artificial Intelligence: CRS Products | 2026-04-14T04:00:00Z | 2026-04-17T15:08:05Z | Active | Reports | Laurie Harris, Rachael D. Roan | Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) technologies—including machine learning, generative AI (GenAI), and facial recognition—are demonstrating potential benefits across a variety of sectors of the U.S. economy. At the same time, the rapid innovation in and proliferation of AI tools have generated concern over their potential disruptive effects, such as generation and dissemination of misinformation, potential shifts in jobs and employment opportunities, and social, ethical, and security risks. Over the past few Congresses, Members have considered a variety of policies and legislation associated with AI technologies and their applications. With interest in AI remaining high, Congress may continue to engage in AI policymaking. To support Congress, CRS has assembled a list of policy experts and legal points of contact who can assist with issues related to AI. The contact list is available in CRS Report R48262, Artificial Intelligence: CRS Experts and Points of Contact, coordinated by Laurie Harris. Additional written and audiovisual CRS products on AI-related policy and legal issues, legislation, and executive branch actions are presented here, in the following categories: AI Overview: Technology and Regulation—products that provide background information on AI in general, including a taxonomy of AI terminology, cross-sector issues, and topics related to AI regulation and governance. Generative AI—products that focus on the subset of GenAI technologies; GenAI refers to AI models trained on large volumes of data that are able to generate new content, such as text, images, videos, computer code, or music. AI and Biological Sciences—products that cover the intersection of AI and the biological sciences, including engineering biology and biological design, as well as aspects of laboratory automation and design. AI and Defense—products that cover the intersection of AI and the defense sector, including emerging technologies used by the military. AI, Economics, and Labor—products that cover AI’s effect on the economy… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R48909/R48909.1.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/HTML/R48909.html | |
| R48905 | U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA): Structure and Proposed Changes | 2026-04-14T04:00:00Z | 2026-04-16T11:23:48Z | Active | Reports | Zachary T. Neuhofer | The Act of May 15, 1862, established the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). While agricultural research was USDA’s initial focus, its size and responsibilities expanded over its more than 160 years. Newly created agencies within the department covered areas such as agricultural marketing, rural development, and conservation. Since then, USDA has undergone organizational changes; it established, consolidated, or eliminated agencies, offices, and presidentially appointed positions. Reorganization activities also have changed the shape, size, and location of the workforce and physical footprint of USDA and its agencies. As part of the second Trump Administration’s reorganization and workforce reduction efforts throughout the executive branch, the Secretary of Agriculture released a memorandum in July 2025 proposing further reorganization plans for USDA. Congress may organize the USDA through authorizing and appropriations legislation. For example, the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (1994 USDA Reorganization Act; Title II of P.L. 103-354) established a structure that resembles the department’s current organization. Through appropriations legislation, Congress can direct or limit USDA’s ability to use discretionary appropriations to reorganize the department. Further, the Secretary of Agriculture has existing authorities to determine how the department will be structured to perform its statutory duties. For example, Section 4 of the Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953 (7 U.S.C. §2201 note) allows the Secretary to delegate USDA statutory functions to any office or agency within the department. The Secretary of Agriculture is a presidential Cabinet member. USDA’s agencies are overseen by Under Secretaries (currently eight) who oversee the department’s specific mission areas. USDA’s mission areas are: Farm Production and Conservation; Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services; Food Safety; Marketing and Regulatory Programs; Natural Resources and Environment; Research, Education and Economics; Rural… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R48905/R48905.2.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/HTML/R48905.html | |
| IN12680 | Recent Regulatory Changes to Bank Capital Requirements | 2026-04-14T04:00:00Z | 2026-04-15T11:23:49Z | Active | Posts | Marc Labonte, Andrew P. Scott | Capital requirements are one of the primary ways banks are regulated for safety and soundness. (For background, see CRS Report R47447, Bank Capital Requirements: A Primer and Policy Issues.) Under leadership appointed by President Trump, federal bank regulators have released several proposed or final rules since 2025 that on net would effectively reduce how much capital banks are required to hold. These changes are taking place in the broader context of bank regulatory relief that regulators have pursued and the 119th Congress has considered. Capital is a relatively expensive source of funding for banks. Therefore, reducing required capital will lower banks’ funding costs, which could increase the provision of bank credit; however, holding insufficient capital would increase the risk of bank failure. Table 1 presents a brief description of five proposed rules and one final rule promulgated since 2025 affecting bank capital. Each rule applies to a different set of banks. Regulators separate banks with over $100 billion in assets into four categories for regulatory purposes based on their size and systemic importance. Category I consists of the eight U.S. global systemically important banks (G-SIBs). Banks in the other three categories are progressively less systemically important. Table 1. Recent Rulemakings Modifying Capital Requirements Changes to Status/Date Description Community Bank Leverage Ratio (CBLR) Proposal (12/25) Tier 1 capital/assets would be reduced from 9% to 8%, and the grace period for banks to remain in the CBLR program while not meeting the requirement would be extended from two to four months. Applies to banks with less than $10 billion in assets that opt into the CBLR framework. Stress Tests Proposal (11/25) Proposed changes to the stress test model and the global market shock would effectively reduce banks’ stress test losses, which would reduce required capital under the stress capital buffer. Applies to Category I, II, III, and IV banks. Advanced Approach (Basel Endgame Re-Proposa… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IN/PDF/IN12680/IN12680.1.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IN/HTML/IN12680.html | |
| IN12679 | The Length of Major Steps in the Supreme Court Appointment Process (1975-2022) | 2026-04-13T04:00:00Z | 2026-04-14T13:08:36Z | Active | Posts | Barry J. McMillion | This Insight provides historical data and information related to the length of time it has taken to appoint new Justices to the Supreme Court from 1975 to 2022. Specifically, for individuals nominated to the Court during this period, this Insight provides information about how long it has taken for each major step in the appointment process to occur, from the date on which it was publicly known a vacancy would occur to the date on which the Senate voted on the nomination. Additional information about the Supreme Court appointment process can be found in CRS reports related to a President’s selection of a nominee, consideration by the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Senate debate and confirmation vote. Days Elapsed from Vacancy to Nomination Announcement Figure 1 shows the number of days that elapsed between the date on which it was publicly known that a Justice was leaving the Court (due to retirement or death) and the date on which the President publicly identified a nominee to replace the Justice. The figure only shows those vacancies on the Court for which a single nomination was made for the vacancy to be filled. Consequently, for example, the vacancy created by the death of Justice Scalia is not included in Figure 1 (since more than one nomination was made before it was filled). Overall, for the 14 vacancies included in the figure, approximately 20 days, on average, elapsed between the date on which it was publicly known that a Justice was leaving the Court and the date on which the President publicly identified a nominee to replace the Justice (the median was 14 days). For the seven Justices currently serving on the Court who are also included in Figure 1, the average number of days from a vacancy occurring to a President’s public announcement of a nomination to the Court was 16 days (the median was 12 days). For the most recent vacancy in 2022, President Biden nominated Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson 29 days after Justice Stephen Breyer announced his intention to vacate his seat on the Court. Figure 1. Numbe… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IN/PDF/IN12679/IN12679.1.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IN/HTML/IN12679.html | |
| R48903 | The Strait of Hormuz in Brief: Non-Oil Shipments and Effects on U.S. Shippers | 2026-04-10T04:00:00Z | 2026-04-11T05:08:34Z | Active | Reports | John Frittelli, Ben Goldman | Before U.S. and Israeli military operations began against Iran on February 28, 2026, the average number of ships from various countries transiting through the Strait of Hormuz (the Strait) was about 130 each day. As of April 7, 2026, only a handful of ships have risked the transit each day since the start of the operations for fear of attack by Iranian forces, which are reportedly negotiating with and permitting selected ships to pass through the Strait. [summary suppressed, strait of hormuz iran conflict shipping fertilizer persian arabian gulf] | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R48903/R48903.3.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/HTML/R48903.html | |
| R48902 | Internet Architecture: A Layer-Based Analysis of Selected Internet Policy Issues | 2026-04-10T04:00:00Z | 2026-04-11T05:08:02Z | Active | Reports | Ling Zhu | The internet is an information system of geographically distributed, interconnected computer networks (known as “a network of networks”). The term internet architecture generally refers to its fundamental design—a set of technical principles and protocols and the network structure of the internet. On the basis of the internet architecture model, the internet runs a wide variety of communication services that enable and facilitate information access, distribution, exchange, sharing, and creation. Internet architecture can be represented by five hierarchical layers: the application layer, the transport layer, the network layer, the link layer, and the physical layer. Each layer contains network protocols, which are common languages or conventions that internet devices and equipment use to communicate with one another, control data transmission, and deliver an internet service. The application layer represents a variety of online applications available to end users (e.g., websites, email services, social media platforms, digital marketplaces, and online streaming services). In the application layer, users directly interact with the internet (e.g., through a web browser) and communicate with other users (e.g., through a social media mobile app). The transport layer is responsible for transporting data generated by internet applications between devices (e.g., sending a message from one user’s laptop to another user’s smartphone using an email application). This layer contains a small number of communication protocols. The most commonly used one is the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP), which ensures reliable end-to-end data transmission over the internet in the correct order and without errors, missing data, or duplicate data. The network layer is responsible for finding the most efficient path to route the data across any set of interconnected networks between the source device and the destination device, using Internet Protocol (IP) addresses. Because the internet uses TCP and IP collectively as its core communica… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R48902/R48902.1.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/HTML/R48902.html | |
| LSB11417 | Applying the Americans with Disabilities Act to Ridesharing Companies | 2026-04-10T04:00:00Z | 2026-04-11T05:08:22Z | Active | Posts | April J. Anderson, Abigail A. Graber | Emerging technology often creates new issues in antidiscrimination law. Technologies like rideshare apps have opened up convenient transportation opportunities for many people with and without disabilities; however, some people with disabilities have alleged that these new services are leaving them behind. In September 2025, the Department of Justice (DOJ) sued Uber Technologies, Inc. (Uber), alleging that the company discriminated against passengers with disabilities. The DOJ is bringing claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits disability discrimination by certain transportation operators and requires them to make reasonable accommodations for passengers with disabilities. On March 5, 2026, the district court denied Uber’s motion to dismiss. The DOJ’s suit is the latest foray in ADA litigation against the ridesharing companies Uber and Lyft, Inc. (Lyft). Passengers with disabilities have also attempted to enforce the ADA against these companies with mixed success. Blind passengers have achieved victories in the early stages of litigation and at one point entered into a nationwide settlement with Uber to secure their right to travel with service animals. Passengers who use wheelchairs, on the other hand, have settled some cases but struggled to convince courts that ridesharing companies must make changes to better serve their needs. This Legal Sidebar reviews the portions of the ADA that may govern ridesharing companies and the application of that law in recent litigation. The Sidebar then turns to DOJ enforcement actions—including the pending lawsuit against Uber. Does the ADA Cover Ridesharing Companies? Congress enacted the ADA to “provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities.” To that end, the primary titles of the ADA address disability discrimination in three broad contexts: employment (Title I), state and local government (Title II), and public accommodations and commercial faciliti… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/PDF/LSB11417/LSB11417.1.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/HTML/LSB11417.html | |
| IF13202 | Section 408 Permission to Alter Army Corps Works: Developments and Congressional Considerations | 2026-04-10T04:00:00Z | 2026-04-11T05:08:20Z | Active | Resources | Nicole T. Carter | Congress has authorized the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to undertake thousands of public (civil) works projects across the United States. The Secretary of the Army must grant permission before an entity other than USACE proposes altering a USACE public “work.” Pursuant to Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. §408), as amended, the Secretary may grant permission if the alteration “will not be injurious to the public interest and will not impair the usefulness of such work.” These permissions are known as Section 408 permissions. Alteration examples include a utility line or pipeline crossing USACE-maintained navigable channels or USACE-constructed levees, nonfederal installation of hydropower at USACE dams, and nonfederal sand placement affecting USACE coastal storm damage projects. According to USACE, on average, the agency receives 1,200 Section 408 requests per year. Roughly 3% of projects on the federal infrastructure permitting dashboard reference a Section 408 permission. New National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. §§4321 et seq.) procedures may, and a proposed rulemaking and legislation if enacted could, adjust the agency’s Section 408 review process. Congressional deliberations may evaluate the consequences of changes not only for the permission requesters but also the public that benefits from the USACE project. Congress may weigh whether to legislate on the Section 408 authority and process in light of the rulemakings and/or in the context of broader federal permitting process modification efforts. Section 408 Review Process USACE has established a review process for Section 408 permissions that assesses whether or not a requester’s alteration undermines the structural integrity or functional performance of a USACE work, or harms the public interest. USACE asks for the requester’s project description (including construction techniques, materials, and schedule). Given that a nonfederal sponsor of a USACE project shares many project costs and responsibilit… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF13202/IF13202.1.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/HTML/IF13202.html | |
| IN12678 | U.S.-Iran Ceasefire: Assessment, Reactions, and Issues for Congress | 2026-04-09T04:00:00Z | 2026-04-11T05:08:20Z | Active | Posts | Christopher M. Blanchard, Jim Zanotti, Clayton Thomas | Middle East & North Africa, Iran, Middle East | On April 7, 2026, the United States and Iran agreed to a two-week ceasefire, which may bring a temporary halt to 40 days of conflict. Attacks on and by Iran on April 8, as well as escalated Israeli strikes in Lebanon as of April 9, underscore the fragile and contested nature of the agreement. During the conflict, Iran has carried out missile and drone attacks against civilian and military targets in multiple countries. The conflict has disrupted regional energy production and maritime and air transit with global economic impacts. The Pakistan-brokered ceasefire came hours after President Donald Trump wrote on social media that “A whole civilization will die tonight” and hours before his threatened deadline to destroy Iran’s bridges and power plants. U.S. and Iranian understandings of the nature and content of the ceasefire appear to differ as of April 9, ahead of a tentative April 11 meeting between senior Iranian and U.S. negotiators, including Vice President JD Vance. Congress may consider whether and how to support, reject, or modify Administration approaches to subsequent negotiations and any proposed changes to U.S. military operations, diplomatic agreements, sanctions, or assistance to regional partners. Assessment As of April 9, no text reflecting mutual agreement has been publicly released. Rather, the two sides’ public statements on the ceasefire differ and may indicate possible points of tension. President Trump, in announcing the ceasefire, wrote on social media that the United States had received “a 10 point proposal from Iran” and that it was “a workable basis on which to negotiate.” Iran has reportedly produced at least two versions of a 10-point proposal that may differ from each other, as well as from the version referenced by President Trump. The United States in March reportedly transmitted a 15-point proposal, which Iran rejected. Issues of potential disagreement or contention include Iran’s nuclear program. The U.S. 15-point plan reportedly restated U.S. demands that Iran dismantle its nuc… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IN/PDF/IN12678/IN12678.4.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IN/HTML/IN12678.html |
| IF13201 | Soft Targets and the Nonprofit Security Grant Program | 2026-04-09T04:00:00Z | 2026-04-11T05:08:18Z | Active | Resources | Shawn Reese | Nonprofit organizations, including religious institutions, community centers, charitable organizations, and advocacy groups, frequently operate with limited security resources. They may face heightened threats due to their visibility, mission, or symbolic significance. The facilities operated by these types of organization, which may be open to the public and therefore vulnerable to terrorism or targeted violence, are known as “soft targets” and have increasingly become a focus of U.S. homeland security policy. For instance, federal homeland security efforts at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice have expanded to include programs specifically designed to support the security needs of soft targets. One of the most prominent examples is the Nonprofit Security Grant Program (NSGP), which is administered by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as a part of the broader suite of homeland security and preparedness grants. Since the program launched in 2005, the NSGP has grown from a relatively small and intermittently-funded grant program to one of the largest federal programs supporting security for nonprofit organizations. Annual appropriations for the NSGP increased by over 1,000% between FY2005 and FY2025. The program now represents a significant component of federal efforts to enhance physical security and incident preparedness for nonprofit organizations—particularly those considered at risk of terrorism or hate-motivated violence. Background The development of security programs such as the NSGP is closely tied to the expansion of federal homeland security policy after the September 11, 2001, attacks. Following those attacks, Congress significantly increased federal assistance to state and local governments to enhance preparedness for emergency response and counterterrorism capabilities. These assistance (grant) programs expanded over time to include funding for preparedness efforts designed to protect critical infrastructure, improve cybersecurity, and strengthen physical… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF13201/IF13201.1.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/HTML/IF13201.html | |
| IF13200 | Treasury’s Exchange Stabilization Fund | 2026-04-09T04:00:00Z | 2026-04-11T05:07:58Z | Active | Resources | Marc Labonte, Rebecca M. Nelson | International Financial Markets, Trade & International Finance | The Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF) is an emergency reserve fund of the Treasury Department created by Congress in 1934. The ESF has evolved from its original purpose of maintaining the fixed dollar exchange rate. Now, the value of the dollar is market-determined and the ESF is a fund that the Treasury Secretary can use quickly with few restrictions for any purpose and without congressional approval. Treasury Secretaries have used the ESF for a variety of objectives, including supporting foreign governments, engaging in specific transactions with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and stabilizing U.S. financial markets. The Treasury Secretary’s use of the ESF to provide temporary financial support to Argentina in 2025 has renewed debates about the ESF’s function and purpose. Background The ESF was established by Section 10(a) of the Gold Reserve Act of January 30, 1934 (31 U.S.C. §5302), to stabilize the exchange value of the dollar at a time when the international monetary system was being destabilized by competitive currency devaluations. The ESF was established with $2 billion realized after the 1934 devaluation of the dollar. The ESF is self-financing and does not regularly receive congressional appropriations. Congressional oversight is largely limited to after-the-fact reporting requirements detailing the fund’s activities. After World War II, when the International Monetary Fund (IMF) was established, the ESF was the source of funds for the U.S. contribution. As provided in the Bretton Woods Agreement Act of 1945 (Section 7 of P.L. 79-191), $1.8 billion of the ESF’s capital of $2 billion was used to make a partial payment on the U.S. subscription to the IMF. The 1945 act also included permanent authority for the ESF. In 1976, following the end of the quasi-gold standard, where the dollar was pegged to gold and other countries’ currencies were pegged to the dollar, Congress struck the explicit purpose of stabilizing the exchange value of the dollar from the ESF’s statute, and its purpose was expanded… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF13200/IF13200.1.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/HTML/IF13200.html |
| IF13199 | Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 | 2026-04-09T04:00:00Z | 2026-04-10T13:38:05Z | Active | Resources | Christopher A. Casey, Danielle M. Trachtenberg, Christopher T. Zirpoli | On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the imposition of tariffs. Later that same day, President Trump announced that he was imposing a temporary 10% surcharge on imports using Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. § 2132). This is the first time a President has used Section 122. Section 122 authorizes the President to impose temporary import duties or surcharges “[w]henever fundamental international payments problems require special import measures to restrict imports (1) to deal with large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits, (2) to prevent an imminent and significant depreciation of the dollar in foreign exchange markets, or (3) to cooperate with other countries in correcting an international balance-of-payments disequilibrium.” President Trump’s actions have raised questions about the meaning of the term “balance-of-payments deficits” as it is used in Section 122. Sec. 122 and the Bretton Woods System In 1944, delegates from various countries met in Bretton Woods, NH, to plan the post-World War II economic order. Under the monetary system that emerged, participating countries generally pegged (fixed) the exchange rates of their currencies to the U.S. dollar, which the U.S. government allowed foreign governments to convert into gold at $35 per ounce. Due to the global need for U.S. dollars in the Bretton Woods system, by 1949 U.S. dollar liabilities held abroad were growing larger than the U.S. stock of monetary reserve assets (chiefly gold). By the 1960s, concern about the outflow of gold and U.S. capacity to maintain the convertibility of the dollar prompted expert debate (including over what statistics would best represent the problem) before Congress’s Joint Economic Committee. Congress held dozens of hearings, culminating in a report recommending the devaluation of the dollar. That summer, several countries signaled their intention to convert dollars into gold. In response, on August 15, 197… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF13199/IF13199.1.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/HTML/IF13199.html | |
| R48899 | FY2026 NDAA: Military Construction and Housing Authorizations | 2026-04-08T04:00:00Z | 2026-04-10T16:53:55Z | Active | Reports | Andrew Tilghman | Military Construction & Family Housing Authorizations, National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) | The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY2026 authorized funding for the Department of Defense (DOD) military construction and family housing programs, and included policy provisions that may impact the management and oversight of these programs. (DOD is “using a secondary Department of War designation,” under Executive Order 14347 dated September 5, 2025.) The FY2026 NDAA authorized 4.4% more for military construction (MILCON) and family housing than the amount the President requested in his FY2026 budget submission to Congress. The FY2026 NDAA included several provisions that gave DOD expanded authorities for executing military construction contracts. Other provisions may affect the Defense Community Infrastructure Program (DCIP), which is a DOD-run grant program that provides funding for local government entities in communities surrounding military installations to support civilian infrastructure projects that may in some way enhance military readiness. The law also included provisions that may affect the funding and oversight of military housing programs. Among those provisions are repeal of statutory requirements for construction standards intended to reduce risk of terrorist attacks; new authorities giving DOD more flexibility for MILCON contracting; expanded eligibility for grant programs supporting communities surrounding military installations, and additional requirements for DOD’s management of the privatized housing programs. During the legislative process, the Senate-passed version of an NDAA proposed to change the way Congress provides funding for military infrastructure by shifting Facilities Sustainment Restoration and Modernization (FSRM) funding from DOD’s Operation and Maintenance (O&M) accounts into the accounts for MILCON. That proposed change was not included in the version of the legislation that was ultimately enacted. | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R48899/R48899.2.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/HTML/R48899.html |
| LSB11416 | Supreme Court Limits Secondary Copyright Liability for Internet Service Providers | 2026-04-07T04:00:00Z | 2026-04-09T07:22:52Z | Active | Posts | Kevin J. Hickey | The Supreme Court of the United States, Copyright | On March 25, 2026, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entertainment (Cox), which limited the liability of internet service providers (ISPs) for the copyright infringements of their users. Cox clarified the legal standard for contributory infringement, a doctrine under which a party can sometimes be held responsible for copyright infringement committed by another person. Cox held that that contributory copyright infringement requires intent, which can be shown “only if the party induced the infringement or the provided service is tailored to that infringement.” The plaintiffs in Cox had obtained a $1 billion jury verdict against the ISP based on evidence that Cox had continued to provide internet access to certain subscribers after these accounts had been repeatedly flagged for illegally downloading copyrighted works. The Supreme Court held that this evidence was legally insufficient to show the necessary intent, explaining that “merely providing a service to the general public with knowledge that it will be used by some to infringe copyrights” does not make an ISP liable for copyright infringement. In effect, the ruling in Cox confines the doctrine of contributory copyright infringement to two theories that the Court previously recognized in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. (Grokster) and Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. (Sony). Following Cox, it will generally be harder for copyright owners to hold online platforms like ISPs, artificial intelligence (AI) companies, or e-commerce websites liable for the infringing activities of their users. The decision in Cox was unanimous in reversing the lower-court jury verdict. Justice Thomas wrote the opinion of the Court. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Jackson, concurred only in the judgment, agreeing with the result but arguing that the Court’s opinion “unnecessarily limits secondary liability.” This Sidebar reviews the copyright law underlying the dispute in Cox, the history of the case … | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/PDF/LSB11416/LSB11416.1.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/HTML/LSB11416.html |
| IF13198 | Satellite Direct-to-Cellular (D2C) Service: Emergence, Use Cases, and Considerations for Congress | 2026-04-07T04:00:00Z | 2026-04-09T11:52:51Z | Active | Resources | Colby Leigh Pechtol | Satellite Direct-to-Cellular (D2C) is an emerging technology that connects smartphones to low Earth orbit (LEO) satellite networks, allowing users to connect to cellular service in areas where terrestrial (i.e., ground-based) cellular networks are not available. This could potentially help eliminate “dead zones,” ensuring that consumers are continuously connected to cellular service from their own devices (i.e., smartphones). D2C service differs from the Emergency SOS feature offered on some smartphones, which requires specialized satellite hardware built into the phone that allows users to access emergency services when no terrestrial cellular signal is available. D2C service aims to offer communications (e.g., voice and data) with anyone (beyond emergency services) along with access to numerous applications (e.g., navigation, internet browsing, video calls). With the emergence of D2C services, Congress may be interested in potential use cases, including how this service may shape the connectivity landscape. Congress may consider associated issues such as allocation of radio spectrum for D2C services, the growing number of satellites in orbit, and the role of U.S.-based satellite providers in global communications and affairs. Emergence of Satellite D2C Services In 2025, telecommunication providers began partnering with LEO satellite providers to enable D2C services without the need for specialized hardware or a specialized satellite phone. For example, T-Mobile is partnering with SpaceX; AT&T and Verizon are partnering with AST SpaceMobile. Typically, LEO satellite providers do not offer cellular service directly to consumers, but provide the capability for the retransmission of cellular data via satellite. D2C satellites are equipped with antennas and a modem, the same as those in terrestrial cellular towerseffectively functioning as “cell towers in space.” Data from a smartphone can be transmitted from Earth to space to a D2C satellite where the data enters the network. The LEO satellite provider then route… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF13198/IF13198.1.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/HTML/IF13198.html | |
| IF13197 | Cyber and Artificial Intelligence Provisions in the FY2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) | 2026-04-07T04:00:00Z | 2026-04-08T08:22:56Z | Active | Resources | Catherine A. Theohary, Kelley M. Sayler | Defense Authorization, Defense Budgets & Appropriations, Artificial Intelligence, National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), Strategy, Operations & Emerging Threats, Technology, Information & Cyber Defense | The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026 (FY2026 NDAA; P.L. 119-60) contains numerous provisions regarding cyber-related issues, including artificial intelligence (AI). Title XV organizes Cyberspace-Related Matters into five subtitles: A. Operations; B. Cybersecurity; C. Information Technology and Data Management; D. Artificial Intelligence; and E. Reports and Other Matters. Other titles in the FY2026 NDAA contain provisions directly or indirectly related to cyberspace and AI. This In Focus describes selected elements of these and other selected provisions and potential issues for Congress. Cyber Operations Provisions Section 1501 of the FY2026 NDAA requires the Commander of U.S. Cyber Command (USCYBERCOM) to establish processes for planning, programming, and budget coordination for Cyber Mission Force (CMF) operations to ensure the CMF is adequately resourced to sustain its mission. Section 1502 amends 10 U.S.C. §392a(b) to direct the Senior Military Advisor for Cyber Policy to report to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Cyber Policy, rather than the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. Section 1503 directs the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) to “develop a technical debt classification that adequately reflects different types of technical debt” and integrate the framework into Department of Defense (DOD) structures “relating to resourcing and programmatic decisions for existing or proposed information technology systems, services, or related programs of record.” (DOD is “using a secondary Department of War designation” and the SECDEF is using a secondary title of “Secretary of War” under Executive Order 14347, dated September 5, 2025.) Technical debt is the future cost of relying on suboptimal, expedient choices during software development. Section 1504 establishes a DOD-wide Data Ontology Governance Working Group to “expand data interoperability, enhance information sharing, and enable more effective decision making throughout the Department.” Section 1505 requires DOD tabletop exerci… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF13197/IF13197.1.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/HTML/IF13197.html |
| R48901 | Offshore Oil and Gas Development: Legal Framework | 2026-04-06T04:00:00Z | 2026-04-11T05:07:59Z | Active | Reports | Adam Vann | The development of offshore oil, gas, and other mineral resources in the United States is affected by a number of interrelated legal regimes, including international, federal, and state laws. International law provides a framework for establishing national ownership or control of offshore areas, and domestic federal law mirrors and supplements these standards. Governance of offshore minerals and regulation of development activities are bifurcated between state and federal law. Generally, states have primary authority in the area extending three geographical miles from their coasts. The federal government and its comprehensive regulatory regime govern minerals located under federal waters, which extend from the states’ offshore boundaries to at least 200 nautical miles from the shore. The basis for most federal regulation is the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) (43 U.S.C. §§ 1331-1356c), which provides a system for offshore oil and gas exploration, leasing, and ultimate development. The OCSLA requires the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) to manage offshore energy development in accordance with regularly generated “Five Year Programs” generated by the agency in conjunction with other public and private stakeholders. The Programs are administered by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), an agency within DOI that manages offshore leasehold auctions and promulgates regulations governing all aspects of the offshore oil and gas exploration and production process. Regulations run the gamut from health, safety, resource conservation, and environmental standards to requirements for production-based royalties and, in some cases, royalty relief and other development incentives. The collection and disbursement of royalties from offshore energy production continues to be a subject of interest to Congress. A number of federal and state statutory and regulatory programs also affect offshore oil and gas exploration and production both directly and indirectly. Federal actions taken during the leasing and prod… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R48901/R48901.1.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/HTML/R48901.html | |
| R48897 | Lifetime Low Earners and Social Security: Analysis of Data from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS) | 2026-04-06T04:00:00Z | 2026-04-07T16:30:29Z | Active | Reports | Zhe Li | For the purpose of Social Security, individuals with lifetime low earnings are commonly defined as those with low career-average covered earnings. Covered earnings include wages and self-employment income subject to the Social Security payroll tax and used in benefit calculations. Most jobs in the United States are covered by Social Security. In 2025, about 185 million people worked in covered employment, representing roughly 93% of workers in paid employment and self-employment. Among lifetime low earners, some workers experienced prolonged periods of low earnings, while others had intermittent employment histories. This report examines the characteristics and covered earnings patterns of lifetime low earners born between 1940 and 1959, defined as individuals in the bottom 25% of the career-average earnings distribution (in 2020 dollars). Understanding their characteristics, earnings trajectories, and retirement income can help policymakers identify more targeted policy options and better assess how changes to Social Security may affect different subgroups within this population. The analysis is limited to the earnings covered by the Social Security program and draws on data from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS) linked to administrative records from the Social Security Administration (SSA). Lifetime low earners differed substantially from other earners across a broad range of demographic, health, and employment characteristics. Low earners were more likely to be women, have lower educational attainment, identify as Black non-Hispanic or Hispanic, have more children, be foreign-born, and report health limitations or disabilities. They also accumulated significantly fewer years of covered earnings, with 9.7% having 35 or more years of earnings, compared with 83.0% of all other earners. Reflecting these disparities, lifetime low earners were more likely to experience poverty in older age: 17.8% had household income below the poverty threshold at ages 65-66, compared with 2.6% of all other earners. Social Secur… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R48897/R48897.2.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/HTML/R48897.html | |
| R48896 | The National Labor Relations Board: Legal Background and Recent Constitutional Challenges | 2026-04-03T04:00:00Z | 2026-04-08T15:22:59Z | Active | Reports | Jon O. Shimabukuro, Jimmy Balser | Administrative Law, Judicial Branch, Jurisprudence, Labor Relations, National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) | The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA or Act), 29 U.S.C. §§ 151–169, regulates labor-management relations between most private-sector employees and employers in the United States. The NLRA created the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), a federal agency that administers and enforces the Act. The NLRB adjudicates labor representation disputes, complaints of unfair labor practices (ULPs), and contract disputes. The NLRB is led by a five-member board (NLRB Board or Board), whose members are appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and generally serve five-year terms as laid out by the Act. In legal developments this decade, litigants have challenged the constitutionality of the NLRB in federal court on several fronts, including claims that statutory provisions that prohibit presidents from removing Board members and administrative law judges without cause are unconstitutional. The NLRA restricts the President from removing any member of the Board except, “upon notice and hearing, for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office, but for no other cause.” 29 U.S.C. § 153(a). Similar protections exist for the NLRB’s administrative law judges, as laid out in the Administrative Procedure Act. 5 U.S.C. §§ 551–559. Such requirements under law are known as “for cause” removal provisions, in contrast to provisions that allow an employee to be removed “at will.” The government in Trump v. Wilcox, 145 S. Ct. 1415 (2025), has contended that the NLRB’s long-standing removal protections unconstitutionally curtail the President’s Article II authority and violate the separation-of-powers doctrine. Plaintiffs have also argued that the NLRB’s combined investigatory and adjudicatory powers are inconsistent with separation-of-powers principles and violate the Fifth Amendment right to due process. For example, plaintiffs have contended that the NLRB unlawfully exercises the powers of all three branches of government by performing executive functions when it investigates and prosecutes ULPs, exercising judicial functions wh… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R48896/R48896.2.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/HTML/R48896.html |
| R48894 | Confederate Names and Military Installations: Fact Sheet | 2026-04-03T04:00:00Z | 2026-04-07T12:38:12Z | Active | Reports | Travis A. Ferrell, Hannah Fischer | Prior to 2023, there were 10 major military installations named after Confederate Civil War commanders, all of which were located in the former states of the Confederacy. Nine of the bases were active-component Army installations and one was a state Army National Guard camp. Drawing on the authority of the Naming Commission, established by Section 370(a) of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2021 (P.L. 116-283), the Department of Defense (DOD) renamed the nine active-component Army installations in 2023. DOD is “using a secondary Department of War designation,” and the Secretary of Defense is using “Office of the Secretary of War” as a “secondary” designation, under Executive Order 14347 dated September 5, 2025. In 2025, the U.S. Army announced that, in accordance with Section 1749(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (P.L. 116-92), “Prohibition on Names Related to the Confederacy,” the same nine active-component Army installations would be renamed again. The second round of base renaming changed the nine Army bases back to their original names; however, this time, non-Confederate veterans who shared the same surnames as the original base names were honored in the renaming. State officials in Louisiana renamed the state National Guard camp in 2023 and, in 2025, renamed it again, following the lead of the federal government and the U.S. Army. In spring and summer 2025, President Donald J. Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth issued press releases and gave speeches referring to the second round of name changes to the nine U.S. Army bases. During the 119th Congress, Members of Congress have expressed various views on the renamings and some have introduced legislation, including amendments, on this issue. | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R48894/R48894.2.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/HTML/R48894.html | |
| R48893 | FY2024 State Grants Under Title I-A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) | 2026-04-03T04:00:00Z | 2026-04-04T12:52:53Z | Active | Reports | Rebecca R. Skinner, Isobel Sorenson | The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), most recently comprehensively amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA; P.L. 114-95), is the primary source of federal aid to support elementary and secondary education. The Title I-A program is the largest grant program authorized under the ESEA and was funded at $18.4 billion for FY2024. It is designed to provide supplementary educational and related services to low-achieving and other students attending elementary and secondary schools with relatively high concentrations of students from low-income families. Under current law, the U.S. Department of Education determines Title I-A allocations to local educational agencies (LEAs) based on four separate funding formulas: Basic Grants, Concentration Grants, Targeted Grants, and Education Finance Incentive Grants. State grants are the total of the allocations for all LEAs in the state under all four formulas. The four Title I-A formulas have somewhat distinct allocation patterns, providing varying shares of allocated funds to different types of LEAs and states. Thus, for some states, certain formulas are more favorable than others. This report provides FY2024 state grant amounts under each of the four formulas used to determine Title I-A grants. Overall, California received the largest FY2024 Title I-A grant amount ($2.2 billion, or 12.29% of total Title I-A grants to states). Vermont received the smallest FY2024 Title I-A grant amount ($42.7 million, or 0.23% of total Title I-A grants to states). | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R48893/R48893.1.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/HTML/R48893.html | |
| LSB11415 | SEC Issues Crypto Guidance as Congress Considers MarketStructure Legislation | 2026-04-03T04:00:00Z | 2026-04-04T15:22:56Z | Active | Posts | Jay B. Sykes | On March 17, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued guidance addressing the application of federal securities law to certain types of crypto-assets and crypto-asset activities. The guidance was joined by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), which indicated that its staff will administer the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) in a manner consistent with the guidance. This Legal Sidebar provides background related to the guidance, reviews the key components of the guidance, and discusses issues that may be of interest to Congress, which is considering legislation that aims to clarify the respective jurisdictions of the SEC and CFTC over crypto markets. Crypto-Assets and Securities Law: The Basics Crypto-assets are digital representations of value recorded on cryptographically secured distributed ledgers—i.e., systems that rely on a peer-to-peer computer network, as opposed to a centralized intermediary, to record transactions. Crypto-assets include a diverse array of instruments. Bitcoin—the largest crypto-asset by market capitalization—was created in 2008 by a pseudonymous programmer or group of programmers. New Bitcoins are created via proof-of-work “mining,” a process whereby individuals or groups use computers to race to solve cryptographic puzzles, with winners earning the right to validate Bitcoin transactions and receive newly created Bitcoins. Other crypto-assets are created and sold by an identifiable entity or group that promises to use proceeds from the sale to develop a new blockchain network or other ecosystem in which the crypto-assets can be used for various purposes. (For an overview of how crypto-assets utilize blockchain technology, see CRS Report R47425, Cryptocurrency: Selected Policy Issues (2023), by Paul Tierno.) These sales of newly created crypto-assets are sometimes called “initial coin offerings” (ICOs). Many ICOs are accompanied by white papers in which the seller describes measures it will take to enhance the value of a crypto-asset and touts the potential pro… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/PDF/LSB11415/LSB11415.1.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/HTML/LSB11415.html | |
| LSB11414 | Birthright Citizenship: Litigation Status Update | 2026-04-03T04:00:00Z | 2026-04-07T12:38:11Z | Active | Posts | Hannah Solomon-Strauss, Juria L. Jones | On April 1, 2026, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara regarding Executive Order 14160, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship” (E.O. 14160 or the E.O.), which purports to limit who may be recognized as having U.S. citizenship based on having been born in the United States. President Trump issued the E.O. on January 20, 2025. The E.O. sets forth the policy that, 30 days after the issuance of the order, a child born to a mother who is either “unlawfully present in the United States” or lawfully present in the United States on a temporary basis, and to a father who is “not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of” the child’s birth, is not to be recognized as a United States citizen and shall not be issued any federal documentation, such as a passport or Social Security number. Plaintiffs in Barbara and other suits challenging the E.O. claim that the order is incompatible with the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and federal law, and cite long-standing Supreme Court precedent and historical practice as supporting their claim. The government contends that persons covered by the E.O. are not entitled to citizenship at birth under either the Fourteenth Amendment or governing statute, and that the executive branch is accordingly authorized to make such policy as in the E.O. This Legal Sidebar provides a brief overview of E.O. 14160 and an update on where lawsuits challenging the E.O.’s legality stand following the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc., in which the Court partially stayed nationwide injunctions that would have prevented E.O. 14160 from taking effect. To date, the district and appellate courts that have considered the merits of the constitutional and statutory challenges to E.O. 14160 have determined the parties that filed the suits have standing, which in some cases was not challenged by the government. In Barbara, the district court certified a class action and found that the individuals within the class have s… | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/PDF/LSB11414/LSB11414.2.pdf | https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/HTML/LSB11414.html |
Advanced export
JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited, object
CREATE TABLE crs_reports (
id TEXT PRIMARY KEY,
title TEXT,
publish_date TEXT,
update_date TEXT,
status TEXT,
content_type TEXT,
authors TEXT,
topics TEXT,
summary TEXT,
pdf_url TEXT,
html_url TEXT
);
CREATE INDEX idx_crs_date ON crs_reports(publish_date);
CREATE INDEX idx_crs_status ON crs_reports(status);