HR-2126-119
Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Sponsored by Clay Higgins (R-LA)
What it does
This bill would prohibit federal executive agencies from requiring or preferring that contractors, subcontractors, or bidders on federal or federally funded construction projects sign agreements with labor unions (known as project labor agreements, or PLAs). It would also extend this prohibition to recipients of federal grants and parties to cooperative agreements. Agencies could grant narrow exemptions only for imminent threats to public health, safety, or national security — but not simply because a labor dispute exists. The Federal Acquisition Regulation would need to be updated within 60 days of enactment to reflect these rules.
Who benefits
Non-union ("open shop") construction contractors and subcontractors who currently may be excluded from or disadvantaged in bidding on federal projects that require PLAs. Small and minority-owned construction businesses, which are more likely to be non-union. Workers employed by non-union firms who would gain access to federally funded jobs. Taxpayers, if open competition lowers construction bids. States and localities receiving federal grants, who would have more flexibility in how they structure construction contracts.
Who is hurt
Unionized construction workers and their unions, who benefit from PLAs that guarantee union labor on large projects. Union-affiliated contractors who currently win PLA-mandated projects. Workers who rely on PLAs for standardized wages, benefits, and safety protocols on large job sites. State and local governments that prefer PLAs as a project management tool and would lose the ability to require them as a condition of federal funding. Construction managers who use PLAs to coordinate multi-trade projects and reduce labor disputes.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that project labor agreements effectively exclude the roughly 87% of the U.S. construction workforce that is not unionized from competing for federally funded work, artificially inflating project costs. They contend that studies — including analyses by the Beacon Hill Institute — have found PLA mandates increase construction costs by 12–18%, meaning taxpayers pay more for the same infrastructure. They further argue that government neutrality in labor relations is a foundational principle: the federal government should neither favor nor penalize contractors based on their union status, and that open competition produces better outcomes for small and disadvantaged businesses.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that project labor agreements are proven tools for managing complex, multi-trade construction projects by standardizing wages, benefits, dispute resolution, and safety rules across dozens of subcontractors — reducing costly delays and work stoppages. They contend that studies by the National Alliance for Fair Contracting and others find no consistent cost increase from PLAs, and that the bill would strip federal agencies of a legitimate project management option. They further argue that the bill's broad prohibition — extending even to grant recipients and cooperative agreement parties — imposes a federal mandate on state and local governments' own contracting decisions, raising concerns about federal overreach into areas traditionally governed by states.
Constitutional context
Congress has broad authority to set conditions on federal spending and contracting under the Spending Clause and the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8). The Tenth Amendment concern is relevant here: by extending the prohibition to grant recipients and cooperative agreement parties, the bill conditions federal funds on states and localities abandoning a contracting tool, which courts have generally permitted under South Dakota v. Dole (1987) as long as conditions are related to the federal interest — though the line between permissible conditions and unconstitutional coercion remains contested.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (agency heads) gains a narrow exemption authority, but Congress sets the default rule prohibiting PLAs; the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council must implement changes within 60 days, and agency heads bear enforcement responsibility with judicial review available to aggrieved contractors.
Historical precedent
Executive Order 13502 (2009) encouraged PLAs on large federal construction projects, and Executive Order 13202 (2001) previously prohibited PLA mandates on federal projects — this bill would codify the latter approach into statute, making it harder for future administrations to reverse by executive action alone.