Which congressional committees and bills could alter or postpone the 2026 federal pay increase?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Congress can alter or postpone the January 2026 federal pay adjustment through appropriations language, standalone pay bills, or by rejecting/overriding the White House’s alternative pay plan; appropriations and legislative-branch spending bills already carried provisions to block a January 2026 pay adjustment (see congressional appropriations activity) [1] [2]. Democrats and unions have filed bills (H.R. 494 / S. 216 and FAIR/other measures) that would raise pay above the White House plan, while the White House transmitted a 1% alternative pay plan that freezes locality pay and must be implemented by executive action in December unless Congress acts [3] [4] [5] [6].
1. Who has the leverage: appropriations and the “must-pass” spending process
Congressional appropriations bills are the earliest and most direct vehicle to change or delay pay adjustments because they can include riders that prohibit or modify scheduled pay changes; both House and Senate legislative-branch appropriations language for FY2026 included provisions aimed at preventing a January 2026 pay adjustment [1] [2]. Appropriations language can be attached to individual funding bills or a continuing resolution (CR), and unions have urged a “clean” CR to avoid embedding pay changes in stopgap funding fights [7] [8].
2. Standalone bills — the route to increase, not freeze, pay
Members of Congress have introduced statutory pay-change bills that would override or set a different marker for 2026 raises: H.R. 494 and S. 216 (and other measures like the FAIR Act or the Federal Adjustment of Income Rates Act) were filed to establish an average 4.3% raise for 2026, effectively countering the White House’s lower proposal [3] [4] [9] [10]. These bills face a harder path under GOP control of the House but function as lobbying tools and floor markers for Democrats and unions [10].
3. The White House alternative pay plan and executive implementation
The President submitted an alternative pay plan to Congress proposing a 1% across‑the‑board base increase and freezing locality pay, plus a 3.8% boost for some law‑enforcement positions; that plan must be implemented by executive order in December unless Congress enacts different legislation or blocks adjustment through statute [5] [6] [11]. Congress has not yet included employee-pay language in many funding bills, leaving room for negotiation or override [12] [5].
4. Committees to watch that shape outcomes
Key committees include House and Senate Appropriations (which draft funding bills and can include pay riders) and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee (and its Senate counterparts) that handle workforce statutory proposals and bills like the FAIR Act or EQUALS-related measures; early bills and markups referenced these committees and their jurisdiction over pay and workforce rules [1] [9] [13] [14]. The Armed Services Committees affect military pay (which influences law-enforcement parity decisions) via the NDAA, and their support for a 3.8% military pay raise shaped parts of the administration’s law-enforcement proposal [15] [5].
5. Timelines and chokepoints: December executive order, January pay period
Practical chokepoints are (a) the December window for an executive order to implement a White House pay message and (b) January’s first applicable pay period when adjustments take effect; Congress can still act before those dates through statute or appropriations language to change or bar the adjustment [6] [11]. If Congress leaves funding unresolved and uses CRs, pay language in those CRs could delay or preserve a freeze [12] [8].
6. Political dynamics and competing agendas
Republican leadership has pushed fiscal restraint and supports the administration’s freeze/freeze-plus-1 plan in public materials, arguing budget limits; Democrats, unions (AFGE, NTEU) and some lawmakers press for 3–4.3% raises and have introduced bills to that end—these are competing priorities with different political incentives and limited paths depending on chamber control and must-pass horse‑trading [7] [4] [10] [8]. Appropriations riders that block pay increases can appeal to members wanting to limit federal spending, while standalone raises are used by Democrats and unions to set political markers [1] [4].
7. What the sources do and don’t say
Reporting documents the White House 1% alternative plan with locality pay frozen and 3.8% for some law enforcement [5] [11], lists congressional bills proposing larger raises (H.R. 494 / S. 216, FAIR, Federal Adjustment of Income Rates Act) [3] [4] [9], and shows appropriations language can block automatic adjustments [1] [2]. Available sources do not mention any specific House or Senate floor votes already taken that definitively finalize or nullify the January 2026 adjustment beyond the appropriations provisions cited; they also do not provide a single timetable predicting final resolution (not found in current reporting).
Bottom line for federal employees and observers
The most important levers are appropriations riders and standalone congressional pay bills; watch House and Senate appropriations activity, the December executive‑order window, and floor action on H.R. 494 / S. 216 and related measures. Expect a political tug-of-war between proposals to block or freeze adjustments and Democratic/union efforts to enact larger statutory increases [1] [3] [4] [5].