A joint resolution goes through the same process as a bill and carries the same legal
force once signed. One exception: a joint resolution proposing a constitutional
amendment is not presented to the President — it needs a two-thirds vote in
both chambers and then ratification by three-quarters of the states.
Bill vs. resolution, explained →
Summary
S.J. Res. 10 is a joint resolution introduced in the Senate on February 3, 2025, by Senators Tim Kaine and Martin Heinrich. The resolution seeks to terminate a national emergency declared with respect to energy by President Donald Trump on January 20, 2025, through Executive Order 14156. The emergency was declared under the National Emergencies Act (NEA), which allows the President to invoke special powers during crises. Under the NEA, Congress can terminate a national emergency by passing a joint resolution, which requires a simple majority in both chambers and presentation to the President for signature or veto. If enacted, S.J. Res. 10 would immediately end the energy-related national emergency, revoking any extraordinary authorities or provisions activated under that declaration. The sponsors, both Democrats, argue that the emergency declaration was unnecessary and an overreach of executive power, contending that there is no actual energy crisis warranting such measures. They emphasize that terminating the emergency restores congressional oversight and prevents the misuse of emergency powers for political ends. Critics, likely including Republicans and the administration, maintain that the emergency declaration was a legitimate response to genuine threats to energy infrastructure, supply chains, or national security, potentially stemming from geopolitical instability, natural disasters, or regulatory burdens. They argue that rescinding the emergency could impede the government's ability to respond swiftly to energy-related crises, remove important tools for ensuring energy security, and undermine presidential authority to act in urgent situations. The resolution reflects broader debates about the balance of power between Congress and the Executive, the appropriate use of emergency declarations, and current U.S. energy policy challenges. As a joint resolution, S.J. Res. 10 follows the same legislative process as a bill: it must pass both the Senate and House of Representatives by simple majority, then be presented to the President. If signed, it becomes law with the force of statute. If vetoed, Congress can override the veto with a two-thirds vote in each chamber. The resolution does not propose a constitutional amendment, so the standard presidential signature process applies.
Ask This Bill
Ask a specific question about this bill’s actual text — answers cite the section they come from.
+Restores congressional oversight over executive emergency powers, preventing potential abuses of authority.
+Terminates an unnecessary emergency declaration that lacks a genuine basis in fact, promoting government transparency and accountability.
+Reinforces the principle that national emergencies should be reserved for actual crises, not used as political tools.
+Aligns with Democratic priorities of checking executive overreach and maintaining balance of powers.
+Supports stability in energy markets by removing uncertainty associated with emergency declarations that could distort pricing or investment decisions.
MIGHT OPPOSE
−May be perceived as obstructing the administration's ability to respond to legitimate energy security threats.
−Could create uncertainty if future emergencies arise and the precedent of quick termination undermines preparedness.
−Might discourage presidents from declaring emergencies when genuinely needed, fearing frequent congressional overturns.
−Could be seen as partisan if Republicans genuinely believe an emergency exists, potentially straining bipartisan cooperation on energy issues.
−Termination might occur before a thorough assessment of whether the emergency powers have been fully utilized or are still needed.
Republicans
MIGHT SUPPORT
+Supports executive authority to act decisively in national emergencies, preserving presidential tools for crisis management.
+If the emergency is seen as outdated or unnecessary, termination reflects good governance by removing obsolete declarations.
+Aligns with limited government principles by potentially reducing the scope of emergency powers if not truly warranted.
+May encourage future presidents to declare emergencies only when absolutely necessary, knowing Congress will review them.
+Could promote energy market stability by ending emergency measures that might interfere with normal market functions.
MIGHT OPPOSE
−Undermines the President's constitutional authority to respond to urgent threats to national security and energy infrastructure.
−Sets a dangerous precedent where Congress can easily overturn presidential emergencies, weakening executive flexibility in crises.
−May signal that the administration's assessment of energy threats is not trusted, possibly emboldening adversaries or disrupting alliances.
−Could halt ongoing emergency actions that are mitigating real risks, such as supply chain disruptions or cyber threats to the grid.
−Reflects partisan opposition rather than principled stance on emergency powers, particularly if Republicans supported similar declarations under previous administrations.
History
Feb 26, 2025
Failed of passage in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 47 - 52. Record Vote Number: 95. (consideration: CR S1364, S1367-1390)
Feb 26, 2025
Failed of passage/not agreed to in Senate: Failed of passage in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 47 - 52. Record Vote Number: 95.
Feb 26, 2025
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources discharged by Unanimous Consent pursuant to the order of 02/18/2025.
Feb 26, 2025
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources discharged by Unanimous Consent pursuant to the order of 02/18/2025.
![Sen. Kaine, Tim [D-VA]](https://www.congress.gov/img/member/k000384_200.jpg)