📜 H.R.1 at the Senate: A Bill That Still Undermines Constitutional Safeguards
Our final analysis of what changed, what remained, and what’s still at stake for constitutional balance in H.R.1.
Engage for Democracy | June 3, 2025
📝 Editor’s Note: What’s Still in H.R.1 — A 1,038-Page Threat to the Vulnerable and the Constitution
Over the past two weeks, Engage for Democracy has published a series of reports on H.R.1—beginning with an analysis of structural shifts in the original 1,116-page draft, followed by updates on the House-passed version and a national call to action ahead of Senate consideration.
This fourth edition serves a specific purpose.
On May 22, the House passed a revised version of H.R.1 totaling 1,038 pages. While some language was softened, most of the structural changes we identified remain—several in their original form, and at least one expanded.
This edition presents a side-by-side analysis of what was proposed, what was passed, and what still threatens constitutional checks and balances.
We didn’t set out to publish four editions on a single piece of legislation. But as the scope and consequences of H.R.1 became clear—and as new information emerged—we felt it was essential to maintain an accurate public record and an informed civic dialogue.
This transparency matters. Once structural shifts in power are codified into law, they’re far more difficult to undo. Executive orders can be challenged. But legislation that curtails judicial review, centralizes regulatory authority, or undermines congressional oversight often reinforces itself over time.
The Senate could take up the bill at any moment. Republican leaders reportedly aim to deliver it to President Trump’s desk by July 4, 2025.¹ That makes clarity—and civic engagement—more urgent than ever.
⚖️ Structural Shifts: What Was Proposed, What Was Passed, and What Still Stands
Below is our updated, side-by-side analysis of the six core structural changes identified in H.R.1—comparing the original 1,116-page pre-enrollment version² with the final 1,038-page House-passed bill now under Senate consideration³.
🧱 Structural Change #1: Judicial Review Weakened
🔁 Updated Comparison — Proposed H.R.1 vs. Passed H.R.1 (Section 80121)
📂 What We Reported (Prior Editions):
Section 80121(h) barred courts from reviewing the legality of certain executive leasing decisions, retroactively nullifying ongoing litigation. This undermined the judiciary’s constitutional role in checking unlawful executive action.
📘 What the Final Bill Now Says (As Passed by the House):
Section 80121(h) remains intact and goes further. It eliminates judicial review both retroactively and prospectively for leasing decisions in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The only exceptions are limited to compelling agency action, not reviewing it.
🔍 Key Language:
“No court shall have jurisdiction to review any action... to issue a lease... or to grant or issue a permit... including any lawsuit... pending in a court as of the date of enactment.”
📉 Bottom Line:
This provision remains unchanged and sweeping in scope. It disempowers courts from reviewing executive actions and overrides pending litigation.
➡️ Constitutional Impact:
Sets a precedent that executive actions can be shielded from judicial scrutiny by statute—undermining the separation of powers.
🧱 Structural Change #2: Regulatory Power Centralized in the Executive Office
🔁 Updated Comparison — Proposed H.R.1 vs. Passed H.R.1 (Section 70200)
📂 What We Reported (Prior Editions):
The original bill proposed a new regulatory regime that gave the Executive Office of the President expansive authority over federal rulemaking, including classifying rules and nullifying past regulations.
📘 What the Final Bill Now Says (As Passed by the House):
The final bill removes the statutory mandates but allocates $100 million to the Office of Management and Budget to oversee regulatory processes across several major agencies.
🔍 Key Language:
“The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall use amounts... to pay expenses associated with improving regulatory processes and analyzing and reviewing rules.”
📉 Bottom Line:
While explicit legal changes were removed, the funding provision still increases White House oversight of rulemaking processes.
➡️ Constitutional Impact:
Centralized review authority remains a concern, despite the softened language.
🧱 Structural Change #3: Judicial Review Stripped from Environmental Leasing Decisions
🔁 Updated Comparison — Proposed H.R.1 vs. Passed H.R.1 (Section 80121)
📂 What We Reported (Prior Editions):
Section 80121(h) eliminated judicial review for leasing decisions in ANWR and reinstated previously vacated leases, overriding court challenges.
📘 What the Final Bill Now Says (As Passed by the House):
The provision is retained and expanded. It explicitly prohibits judicial review of leasing actions and confirms the reinstatement of earlier leasing decisions. Only leaseholders or the State of Alaska may seek court orders to compel agency action.
🔍 Key Language:
“No court shall have jurisdiction to review any action... to issue or reissue a lease... including any lawsuit... pending in a court as of the date of enactment.”
📉 Bottom Line:
This remains among the most sweeping judicial preclusion clauses in the bill.
➡️ Constitutional Impact:
Curtails judicial review of executive actions, narrowing public access to legal remedy.
🧱 Structural Change #4: Executive Discretion Expanded in Tax and National Security Policy
🔁 Updated Comparison — Proposed H.R.1 vs. Passed H.R.1 (Subtitle C)
📂 What We Reported (Prior Editions):
Subtitle C transferred broad discretionary power to executive agencies, particularly in defining tax exemptions, penalties, and national security-related classifications.
📘 What the Final Bill Now Says (As Passed by the House):
Some of the most sweeping language was softened, but many discretionary elements remain. Agencies still maintain broad interpretive power with fewer statutory guardrails.
📉 Bottom Line:
Key provisions remain, though more narrowly framed. The structural shift toward executive discretion endures.
➡️ Constitutional Impact:
Weakens legislative oversight by allowing agencies to redefine legal terms and enforcement priorities.
🧱 Structural Change #5: Credential Gatekeeping in Education Funding
🔁 Updated Comparison — Proposed H.R.1 vs. Passed H.R.1 (Sections 110111–110113)
📂 What We Reported (Prior Editions):
The bill allowed executive officials to define and approve postsecondary credentialing programs for 529 savings eligibility, bypassing independent accreditation standards.
📘 What the Final Bill Now Says (As Passed by the House):
The provisions remain intact. The Treasury Secretary, with input from Labor, may designate credentialing programs regardless of state or VA listings, without added transparency or appeal mechanisms.
📉 Bottom Line:
This provision centralizes credentialing authority in political appointees, with limited external checks.
➡️ Constitutional Impact:
Shifts control of educational legitimacy from academic institutions to the executive branch.
🧱 Structural Change #6: Executive Immigration Courts Gain Self-Funding Authority
🔁 Updated Comparison — Proposed H.R.1 vs. Passed H.R.1 (Section 70016)
📂 What We Reported (Prior Editions):
Section 70016 imposed high fees for immigration relief filings and granted EOIR the power to retain and spend portions of those fees without congressional approval.
📘 What the Final Bill Now Says (As Passed by the House):
All core provisions remain. EOIR retains up to 50% of certain fees and 25% of others. Waivers are banned. Legal orientation funding is blocked.
📉 Bottom Line:
The bill enables a self-financing judicial body within the executive branch, without transparency or due process safeguards.
➡️ Constitutional Impact:
Undermines Article I budget oversight and raises due process concerns in immigration adjudication.
⚖️ Why It Matters
The pressure is on—and time appears short—for Americans to make their voices heard before the Senate takes up the final House version of H.R.1, with GOP leaders reportedly aiming to pass it by July 4, 2025.⁴
Some provisions—like § 70302, which would weaken courts’ ability to enforce injunctions—may be ruled out under Senate reconciliation rules if they lack direct budgetary impact.⁵ According to one expert-informed watchdog group, this provision appears to have no measurable fiscal effect and could be stripped—but only if Senators raise a challenge under the Byrd Rule.⁶
Legal experts are also sounding the alarm. Constitutional scholar Erwin Chemerinsky called § 70302 “stunning in its scope,” warning that it would shield the federal government from accountability—even in cases of ongoing defiance of court orders.⁷
Whether these provisions stay or go may ultimately rest with the Senate parliamentarian. As ABC News reports, Elizabeth MacDonough—an unelected but powerful procedural authority—will determine which parts of the bill meet reconciliation requirements under the Byrd Rule.⁸ Any policy language deemed “extraneous” to budgetary impact must be stripped, unless 60 Senators vote to waive the rules.
This isn’t just about what’s in the bill—it’s about whether those entrusted with our democracy will allow these provisions to quietly become law. Public scrutiny and senatorial action could determine which provisions survive the next phase.
Here’s how we can act—while there’s still time to make a difference:
✍️ Today’s Action
Our continued goal is to have this email sent to every Senator in the country. If you have not already done so, you can take action one of three ways:
1) 📩 Email your Senators and Representative all at once in 3 easy steps:
Copy the message below
Click here to Go to Democracy.io
Paste the message (personalize if you’d like), fill in your info, and click Submit
📝 Message to Congress
Speak Out: H.R.1 Puts the Constitution and Economic Security at Risk
Dear Senator [Last Name],
As H.R.1 advances to the Senate, I urge you to speak out—not just to oppose the bill, but to publicly expose and remove provisions that threaten the constitutional balance of powers and harm working families.
This 1,038-page reconciliation bill includes structural shifts that would weaken congressional oversight, limit judicial review, and centralize executive authority—many with long-term consequences that outlast any administration. These provisions are buried deep in legislative language that even seasoned lawmakers may not yet have reviewed in full.
This is your moment to raise the alarm on the record.
Please read and share this fully cited, nonpartisan analysis before floor debate begins:
🔗 https://engagefordemocracy.substack.com/p/not-only-a-tax-bill-that-harms-everyday⚖️ Structural Risks to Constitutional Checks and Balances
Judicial Review Eliminated in Environmental Cases (Sec. 80121(h))
Strips courts of jurisdiction to review executive leasing actions in the Arctic Refuge—retroactively and prospectively—even where litigation is pending. Only leaseholders and the State of Alaska retain standing. This provision overrides Article III judicial authority and sets a dangerous precedent.Regulatory Power Centralized in the Executive Office (Sec. 70200)
Allocates $100 million to the White House’s OMB to oversee agency rulemaking—bypassing traditional safeguards. Although statutory mandates were softened, centralized political oversight of federal agencies is a serious constitutional concern.Executive Immigration Courts Gain Self-Funding Authority (Sec. 70016)
Allows the DOJ’s EOIR to retain and spend filing fees without congressional appropriation. Fee waivers are banned, legal orientation programs defunded, and due process concerns are heightened—undermining Article I budget power and access to justice.These are not routine budget items. They are structural changes to our system of checks and balances—passed through reconciliation, not full constitutional debate.
📉 Policy Impacts on Working Families
$698 billion cut from Medicaid
$267 billion cut from SNAP
Regressive tax cuts benefiting the top 0.6% over 127 million working Americans
4.5 million U.S. citizen children risk losing Child Tax Credit eligibility
4 million Americans could lose health coverage as ACA subsidies expire
🛑 Why Senate Action Matters Now
Some provisions—like § 70302, which would severely restrict courts’ contempt enforcement powers—may be disqualified under Senate reconciliation rules. But this is not automatic. If Senators do not raise Byrd Rule objections, or if 60 votes are secured to waive those rules, these anti-democratic provisions could remain in law.
Voting no is the right choice—because America should protect the economic security of all its people, not just the wealthiest few. But even for those who disagree on policy, there is a shared constitutional responsibility: to ensure that structural provisions weakening judicial review, legislative oversight, and the separation of powers do not become law. At minimum, that duty must be met.
Please defend the separation of powers. Please raise these structural risks during debate. And please vote no on H.R.1.
Thank you for your service—and for standing up for the Constitution we all rely on.
2) 📲 Text RESIST to 50409 or message via facebook.com/resistbot (where you can send an email, text, or fax!)
Copy the message below (and personalize if you’d like)
Text RESIST to 50409 or Message Via facebook.com/resistbot
📝 Message (Shorter format for Text Messages to Senators)
Speak Out: H.R.1 Puts the Constitution and Economic Security at Risk
Dear Senator [Last Name],
As H.R.1 heads to the Senate, I urge you to speak out and help remove provisions that would erode constitutional checks and balances and harm working families.This 1,038-page bill includes provisions that centralize power in the executive branch, limit judicial review, and bypass congressional oversight—risks that outlast any administration.
It also cuts $698B from Medicaid, $267B from SNAP, and delivers large tax breaks to the wealthiest few—while millions of Americans could lose healthcare and child tax credits.
Key concerns include:
— Eliminating judicial review of Arctic Refuge leasing (Sec. 80121(h))
— Centralizing regulatory authority in the White House (Sec. 70200)
— Granting DOJ immigration courts self-funding power without congressional approval (Sec. 70016)These aren’t just policy changes—they’re structural shifts that weaken our democracy and shift economic burdens onto those least able to bear them.
Voting no is the right choice. But even if you disagree on policy, constitutional protections must not be abandoned. At minimum, that duty must be met.
🔗 https://engagefordemocracy.substack.com/p/not-only-a-tax-bill-that-harms-everyday
Thank you for defending the Constitution and economic fairness.
3) ☎️ Contact your Senator’s Office by Phone
Look up your Senator’s Number Here
Use or modify the phone script below.
☎️ Phone Script for Calling Senate Offices
Hi, my name is [Your Name], and I’m a constituent from [Your City or ZIP Code].
I’m calling to urge Senator [Last Name] to speak out during the Senate debate on H.R.1 and ensure that provisions which undermine the Constitution and hurt working families are removed.
This bill includes serious constitutional concerns—like stripping courts of power, centralizing rulemaking in the White House, and letting immigration courts fund themselves without congressional oversight. Those are structural changes that weaken our democracy.
It also slashes $698 billion from Medicaid, cuts food assistance by $267 billion, and gives massive tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans—while millions of families could lose healthcare and child tax credits.
Please:
Speak out on the record,
Demand removal of the structural threats, and
Vote no if those provisions remain.
Thank you—and please let the Senator know that constituents are watching this debate closely.
🔖 Footnotes
Washington Post, June 2, 2025. The Senate returned to Washington on Monday with President Donald Trump’s massive tax and immigration package high on the agenda. Republicans are seeking to send the One Big Beautiful Bill to Trump’s desk by July 4. Link
U.S. House of Representatives. “Tax Reduction and Reform Act of 2025,” Pre-enrollment version (1,116 pages). Document retrieved via House Budget Committee, May 20, 2025. https://rules.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/rules.house.gov/files/documents/2025_budget_rec_rh_xml.pdf
U.S. House of Representatives. H.R.1 as passed on May 22, 2025 (1,038 pages). Final enrolled version submitted to the Senate. [Congressional Record, May 22, 2025]. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-119hr1eh/pdf/BILLS-119hr1eh.pdf
Washington Post. “Trump’s tax and immigration package heads to Senate.” June 2, 2025. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/06/02/trump-presidency-news/
Alt National Park Service. “For this bill to pass the Senate with a simple majority under budget reconciliation, many sections will have to be cut.” Facebook post, June 1, 2025. https://www.facebook.com/AltUSNationalParkService
Congressional Budget Office scoring reference cited by Alt National Park Service post, June 1, 2025. Ibid.
Chemerinsky, Erwin. “Proposal to limit courts' contempt power is a terrible idea.” ABA Journal, May 21, 2025. https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/proposal-to-limit-courts-contempt-power-part-of-spending-bill-is-terrible-idea-chemerinsky-says
Pecorin, Allison. “Senate parliamentarian will have final say on some provisions in Trump’s funding bill.” ABC News, June 3, 2025. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senate-parliamentarian-final-provisions-trumps-funding-bill/story?id=122432275
Engage For Democracy editions are curated through close analysis of primary legislative documents and expert sources, with research and editorial support from OpenAI’s ChatGPT. All findings are independently reviewed and documented with verifiable citations. Engage For Democracy is a nonpartisan civic education project committed to constitutional accountability, the rule of law, and democratic norms. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, any inadvertent errors are mine alone.
📣 That’s today’s edition. We’ll be back with our next update soon.
Until then:
📢 Share widely—What we do together this week could shape whether these changes pass in silence—or are confronted in daylight.
⚖️ When a budget bill rewrites checks and balances, the danger isn’t just economic—it’s constitutional.
🛡️ Every call, letter, and shared fact helps protect the system that safeguards all other rights.
💪 With vigilance, integrity, and resolve,
Engage For Democracy