hold on there's just too much going on in Congress lmao...
Ends specific federal pandemic unemployment benefits and reclaims unspent funds.
Rep. Miller (R-OH) and other Ohio Representatives.
Introduced in the House, referred to committee.
This bill, known as the CLOSE Act, seeks to terminate several federal unemployment assistance programs that were established under the CARES Act, including Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA), Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation (FPUC), Mixed Earner Unemployment Compensation (MEUC), and Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation (PEUC). It also aims to reclaim any unused funds previously set aside for these programs. The bill was introduced by Representative Miller of Ohio, along with other representatives from Ohio, and has been referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Introduced Feb 2, 2026
This bill was introduced in the House of Representatives on February 2, 2026, and has been referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. For it to become law, it must pass through this committee, be voted on and approved by the full House, pass the Senate, and then be signed by the President. As of now, it is in the very early stages of the legislative process.
If this bill becomes law, federal financial support for individuals under the specific pandemic unemployment programs (PUA, FPUC, MEUC, PEUC) created by the CARES Act would end 30 days after enactment. This means individuals currently receiving these benefits would no longer be eligible for federal payments. Additionally, states would be prohibited from entering into or renewing agreements for these specific federal programs, ensuring their permanent cessation. Any federal money that was allocated but not spent on these programs would be taken back by the U.S. Treasury, excluding funds designated for state administrative costs.
Supporters Say
Supporters would argue this bill promotes fiscal responsibility by ending temporary pandemic spending and reclaiming unspent funds.
Critics Say
Critics might express concerns that ending these benefits could harm individuals or the economy, especially if there's still a need for support.
Those in favor of the CLOSE Act would likely highlight the importance of winding down emergency pandemic-era programs and returning taxpayer money that remains unobligated. They would assert that these benefits were temporary measures and are no longer necessary. Conversely, opponents might argue that abruptly ending these programs could leave some individuals without a critical safety net, particularly if economic recovery is uneven or if there are other ongoing challenges.