The bill
Preserving Presidential Management Authority Act
HR. 2249, 119th Congress — read as touching Labor Unions.
Sponsored by
Rep. Cloud, Michael [R-TX-27]
ID: C001115
Follow the money
The bill
HR. 2249, 119th Congress — read as touching Labor Unions.
The sponsor
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
21 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
This bill's text tracks the "Introduction" section, p. 834-836 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 23 - 21.
March 24, 2025
📍 Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Another masterpiece from the esteemed members of Congress, who apparently have nothing better to do than concoct legislation that's as transparent as a politician's promise.
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Preserving Presidential Management Authority Act (HR 2249) is a cleverly crafted bill designed to give the President more power to unilaterally terminate collective bargaining agreements and override existing labor laws. The main purpose? To further erode workers' rights, of course! Who needs fair negotiations when you can just dictate terms?
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends chapter 71 of title 5, United States Code, to grant the President discretion to negotiate collective bargaining agreements and terminate provisions that conflict with their own rules or executive orders. In other words, it's a carte blanche for the President to disregard existing labor laws and impose their will on federal employees.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The bill primarily affects federal employees, who will see their bargaining power diminished. Labor unions, already weakened by decades of anti-union legislation, will be further marginalized. The only beneficiaries? Corporate interests and politicians who want to maintain control over the workforce.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a symptom of a deeper disease – the erosion of workers' rights in favor of corporate power. By granting the President more authority to override labor laws, Congress is essentially saying that workers are not worthy of fair treatment or representation. The implications? A further widening of the income gap, increased inequality, and a workforce that's increasingly powerless against exploitation.
Diagnosis: This bill suffers from a bad case of " Politician-itis" – a disease characterized by an insatiable desire for power, a complete disregard for workers' rights, and a healthy dose of hypocrisy. Treatment? A strong dose of transparency, accountability, and a commitment to fair labor practices. But don't hold your breath; this bill is just another example of the toxic politics that plague our nation's capital.
In conclusion, HR 2249 is a masterclass in legislative doublespeak – a bill that claims to "preserve" presidential authority while actually undermining workers' rights. It's a cynical ploy to further concentrate power in the hands of politicians and corporate interests, all under the guise of "reform." Don't be fooled; this bill is just another symptom of a system that's terminally ill with corruption, greed, and a complete disregard for the well-being of its citizens.
Rep. Cloud, Michael [R-TX-27]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
This bill has 1 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
ID: S001214
Top Contributors
10
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 22 nodes and 24 connections (22 secondary connections hidden)
Total contributions: $92,650
Showing top 15 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 2 harmed.
Section 2(a) gives the President authority to terminate any provision of a collective bargaining agreement entered into under chapter 71 of title 5, which directly harms labor unions by weakening their negotiated agreements.
Teachers unions are covered under chapter 71 of title 5 for federal sector employees; the bill's allowance for presidential termination of collective bargaining provisions harms their bargaining power.
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.
— 802 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise response to four rounds of tariffs plus an attempted Phase One agreement. The Biden Administration has left the tariffs in place and is expanding them to pursue progressive policy goals. The first order of business for a new Administration that is focused on American workers and consumers is to repeal all tariffs enacted under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 196251 and Sections 201 and 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.52 The President can do this unilaterally, and Congress can do it through legislation. The second order of business requires Congress to pass legislation repealing Sections 232, 201, and 301. The U.S. Constitution places all taxing authority with Congress53 and none with the President. Congress used those provisions of law to delegate some of its taxing authority to the President because it was having trouble passing “clean” tariff legislation in the 1960s and 1970s. Unless and until this constitutional question about delegation is addressed, important reforms are available to the next Congress and the next President. Congress faced a problem of collective action in the 1960s and 1970s. As a whole, Members generally wanted to lower tariffs, but few individual Members were will- ing to remove tariffs that benefited special interests in their districts. Trade bills were invariably watered down through amendments and logrolling. The thinking was that the President, whose constituency is the entire nation, would be less prone to special-interest pleading than Members of Congress would be, so Congress del- egated some of its tariff-making authority to the President in 1962 and 1974 trade legislation. Delegating tariff-making might have worked in the short run, but in the long run, it was both constitutionally dubious and ripe for abuse. That came to pass in 2018. The Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs, invoked in 2018 against Canada, Europe, and other allies on national security grounds, raised car prices by an aver- age of $250 per vehicle and gave America the world’s highest steel prices. They also harmed the construction, canned food and beverage, and other metal-us- ing industries. While this may have benefited the steel industry itself, each steel job saved cost an average of $650,000 per year that had been taken from elsewhere in the econo- my.54 That is no way to strengthen American manufacturing. The New York Federal Reserve estimated in 2019 that the Section 301 China tariffs cost the average house- hold $831 per year,55 a figure that has likely increased with inflation. The new tariffs have a clear record of failure—as conservative economists almost unanimously warned would be the case. Job number one for the next Administration is to return to sensible trade policies and eliminate the destruc- tive Trump–Biden tariffs. Strengthening American Manufacturing. The decline of American manu- facturing is a common political trope in both parties, typically invoked before a call for more government intervention. This narrative has several problems. One is that — 803 — Trade American manufacturing output is currently at an all-time high. The record was not set during World War II and not during the 1950s boom. Output did not peak when manufacturing employment peaked in 1979 or during the Reagan economic revival in the 1980s. It is actually higher now than it has ever been. American manufacturing is buoyant because each manufacturing worker’s pro- ductivity is also at an all-time high. The key to prosperity is doing more with less. The next President should ignore special interests and populist ideologues who want government to do the opposite through industrial policy, trade protectionism, and other failed progressive policies. It takes surprisingly few people to achieve America’s record-high manufac- turing output—currently about 13 million people out of a workforce of more than 160 million, compared to the 1979 peak of 19.5 million people out of a workforce of 104 million.56 Productivity growth has freed the time and talents of millions of people for other, additional uses. The belief that manufacturing has to shrink for services to grow is the zero- sum fallacy against which sensible economists often warn. It is anathema to the optimism, hope, and confidence that are the natural birthright of conservatives. Growing productivity enables more output of both manufacturing and services. That is why America continues to have sustained booms and record-setting real GDP despite the long-run decline in manufacturing employment. Economists distinguish between two types of growth: extensive and intensive. Extensive growth is the Soviet and Chinese model for manufacturing: If you have more people use more resources, they will create more output. Extensive growth is doing more with more; intensive growth is doing more with less. That is where America’s superpower lies. The story of American manufacturing is one of intensive growth dating back to our agricultural origins. Conservative leaders should draw on this history to position America for continued success. With intensive growth, it is not manufacturing or services; it is manufacturing and services. Retaliatory Tariffs. Raising tariffs on another country almost always invites retaliatory tariffs against the U.S. The latter tend to be directed at politically sen- sitive American exports. Retaliatory tariffs by both China and American allies in response to the 2018 steel tariffs were targeted primarily at American agriculture. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, those tariffs cost farmers $27 billion with losses concentrated particularly in heartland states.57 Retaliatory tariffs also targeted U.S. industries that were not protected by tar- iffs. Many imports become inputs into U.S. manufacturing. The motorcycle maker Harley-Davidson was already facing higher production costs as domestic steel producers raised their prices to accommodate the new steel tariff. A retaliatory tariff on its motorcycles imposed by the European Union further raised its prices and hurt its export business. Harm to such innocent bystanders was another unin- tended (though foreseen) consequence.
Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.
Undersea Cable Control Act
A resolution to constitute the majority party's membership on certain committees for the One Hundred Nineteenth Congress, or until their successors are chosen.
Promptly Ending Political Prosecutions and Executive Retaliation Act of 2025