Blog

Since our last update on June 17, there have been few noteworthy developments regarding Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolutions, which is consistent with our expectations based on the timing for the consideration and voting of resolutions, as well as the ongoing negotiations on the “one big beautiful bill.”

In a recent post, we highlighted how the Trump administration's executive orders (EOs) boosting the coal industry will likely not accomplish their hopes for “revival,” as the basic economics of coal generation cannot be modified by executive order, despite Trump’s or Lee Zeldin’s desires. What these policies will achieve, ultimately, is releasing coal-fired power plant operators from any obligation not to harm the communities where they operate.

Since our last update on May 27, we have seen a slowdown in developments regarding Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolutions, which is consistent with Senate timelines for considering and voting on joint resolutions. However, there has been one key development that closes a chapter opened on April 2, when House Republicans decided to use CRA procedures to undo the waivers issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to California.

Since our last update on May 19, we have seen some critical developments regarding  Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolutions. In addition to the relentless progression of some resolutions towards becoming law, the most troublesome was the decision in the Senate to vote on the CRA resolutions ending Clean Air Act waivers issued to California. As James Goodwin said in a recent blog post on the matter, this represents a clear example of Senate Republicans “failing to follow the rules that they agreed to — and doing so to advance their policy agenda without heed to the rule of law wreckage they leave in their wake."

Since our last update (May 12), we have seen some movement regarding Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolutions. The pace has remained high, with outlets like The Hill and Banking Dive reporting that President Trump has signed multiple resolutions into law. Oddly, no official sources (like the White House’s website or congress.gov) reflect these developments.

Since our last update (May 6), we have seen some movement regarding Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolutions. The pace in the Senate remained high, and we have seen lawmakers try to maximize their output before the CRA cutoff date.

In two previous posts, we discussed the major findings of the Project 2025 tracker we created along with our partners at Governing for Impact for monitoring the Trump administration’s ongoing efforts to implement its recommendations over its first 100 days. We also began offering some insights into making sense of these findings and how to interpret them. The basic finding was that the administration has fulfilled more than a quarter of Project 2025’s recommended executive actions affecting domestic policy. This raises a natural follow-up question: Is that a lot? In this post, we continue to provide analytical tools for answering that question.

Since our last update (April 28), we have seen some important developments regarding Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolutions. In the past week, we have seen legislators take up new resolutions for a vote, address the controversial issue of the California Clean Air Act waivers, and send new resolutions to the president to be signed into law. Things seem to be accelerating in Congress (and especially in the Senate), as legislators are approaching the CRA cutoff date.

In the first part of this series, we introduced the major findings of the tracker we built with our colleagues at Governing for Impact for monitoring the Trump administration’s progress in implementing Project 2025’s comprehensive policy blueprint, Mandate for Leadership. Specifically, we found that over its first 100 days, the administration pursued or completed 28 percent of the more than 530 recommended domestic policy executive actions that we included in our tracker. The post went on to provide context for these findings by tracing Project 2025’s circuitous route from obscure presidential transition report to controversial playbook for the Trump administration. Here, we provide further context for our findings by examining some factors that shed light on how significant this progress really is.