How have past congressional measures renamed or reorganized federal agencies?
Executive summary
Congress has long been the primary author of agency creation, abolition and renaming, though Congress has sometimes delegated limited reorganization authority to presidents; modern proposals (like the Reorganizing Government Act of 2025) would reauthorize fast‑track presidential plans that could create, merge, eliminate or rename executive departments through an expedited up‑or‑down vote within 90 days (H.R.1295 would extend that authority through Dec. 2026) [1] [2]. Historical examples range from Roosevelt’s use of statutory reorganization authority in the 1930s (consolidations and creations) to more routine name changes (e.g., Federal Aviation Agency → Federal Aviation Administration when placed in DOT) and many smaller office renamings recorded in the Government Manual and Federal Register [3] [4] [5] [6].
1. Congress writes the rulebook — and usually the names
Congress retains primary power to create, abolish or rename principal executive departments and to set their statutory missions; CRS and other analysts stress that “primary constitutional responsibility for the structural organization of the executive branch” rests with Congress, which uses authorizing and appropriations legislation to do the heavy lifting of reorganizing the government [7] [8]. The Washington Post and Government Executive reporting underscore that many of the big, widely noticed changes in agency identity have been statutory or legislative in origin [9] [10].
2. Presidents can act — but usually only with Congress’s blessing
Congress has occasionally delegated temporary “presidential reorganization authority,” enabling presidents to submit reorganization plans that take effect unless Congress disapproves; Franklin Roosevelt used that power in the late 1930s to consolidate and abolish multiple agencies and to create entities such as the Federal Security Agency and other large consolidations [3]. Contemporary proposals seek to revive or extend that fast‑track authority: the Reorganizing Government Act of 2025 (H.R.1295 / S.583) would reauthorize the President to submit reorganization plans subject to a 90‑day, up‑or‑down congressional vote and would expand the number of executive departments covered [2] [1] [11].
3. What “renaming” looks like in practice — big moves and small edits
Renaming ranges from bureaucratic housekeeping to statutory relabeling that signals policy shifts. Some renamings follow reorganization into new statutory homes — for example, the Federal Aviation Agency became the Federal Aviation Administration when incorporated into the Department of Transportation in the 1960s [4]. Other changes are administrative and low‑profile: agencies routinely publish office name changes in the Federal Register (for example, the NCUA renamed an office to “Office of External Affairs and Communications” in 2019) and the Government Manual keeps a running history of organizational and name changes [6] [5].
4. Why names matter — policy, politics and perception
Renaming can be symbolic: Congress or the White House can use titles to signal priorities or to erase previous missions. The Reorganizing Government Act’s backers frame renewed presidential authority as a tool to “right‑size” government and eliminate “weaponization,” while opponents say fast‑track procedures could be used to gut entire departments [12] [13]. Historical reorganizations often accompanied substantive transfers of functions, budget authority and personnel, so a name change frequently masks deeper shifts in authority and resources overseen in statute and appropriations [7] [14].
5. How reorganizations actually proceed — law, rules, and the record
Major structural changes typically require explicit statutory text, appropriation adjustments, and often interbranch negotiation; CRS notes that Congress has repeatedly used legislation, oversight and appropriations to shape or block administrative reorganizations [7]. The Executive Reorganization Act model creates a process where the President proposes and Congress votes; modern bills (H.R.1295 / S.583) would revive that model with new deadlines and scope changes, including replacing the term “agency” with “executive department” in multiple places [1] [11].
6. Limits, safeguards and litigation risks
Even with delegated authority, reorganizations can be enjoined if a court finds they exceed statutory authority or violate legal limits; reporters have documented litigation and injunctions blocking executive‑branch reorganizations or reductions‑in‑force tied to presidential directives [15]. CRS and FedSupport materials emphasize that smaller administrative changes can be made without new legislation only so long as they do not conflict with existing statutes — and the boundary is often contested [14] [16].
7. What reporting shows about current debates
Coverage of the 2025 proposals shows partisan division: proponents argue fast track restores executive efficiency, while critics warn it circumvents deliberation and could lead to elimination of programs such as education or international development; committee releases and advocacy reporting lay those competing framings side‑by‑side [17] [13] [12]. Available sources do not mention any enacted 2025 renamings resulting directly from H.R.1295 because the bill’s authority would operate only if passed and used — the literature instead documents proposals, historical precedents and the administrative mechanics [2] [1] [11].
Limitations: this analysis draws only on the provided sources and does not attempt to inventory every historical agency name change; for comprehensive lists, see the Government Manual and Federal Register compilations referenced above [5] [8].