New Bill Mandates 180-Day Review for USPS Changes, Giving Congress Veto Power Over Mail Service

This new piece of legislation, the Postal Service Transparency and Review Act, is essentially a huge procedural speed bump for the United States Postal Service (USPS). What it does is mandate that if the USPS wants to make any major changes to mail service—whether it’s a nationwide shift or a significant change in a specific local district—they can’t just roll it out. They must first send the proposal to the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) at least 180 days before they plan to implement it. Crucially, the USPS is barred from spending a single dime on the proposed change until the PRC finishes its review and issues an advisory opinion, which also takes up to 180 days.

The New Oversight: Who’s Steering the Ship?

Think of the PRC as the referee here. Under this bill, the PRC gains some serious teeth. Not only do they review the plan, but if the USPS tries to bypass this review process and starts making unauthorized changes, the PRC can issue a ruling to stop everything immediately. That means the USPS would have to pause all spending on the change and immediately restore mail service back to the old levels. For people who rely on consistent mail service—like the small business owner waiting for daily deliveries or the senior citizen depending on mail-order prescriptions—this oversight increases transparency and provides a check against sudden, disruptive service cuts.

Congress Gets the Final Say on Your Mail

Perhaps the biggest shift is the introduction of a Congressional review period. Once the PRC issues its advisory opinion, Congress gets 60 legislative days to weigh in. During this window, Congress can pass a joint resolution to explicitly disapprove the USPS proposal. If they pass that resolution, the proposed service change is dead in the water, having no legal effect whatsoever. This effectively gives Congress veto power over major operational decisions at the USPS, connecting mail service directly to the political process in a new way.

The Real-World Trade-Off: Accountability vs. Agility

While increased oversight is a clear benefit for accountability, the downside is the potential for significant delays. If the USPS identifies an efficiency improvement—say, a necessary upgrade to sorting technology or a consolidation of underused facilities—that is deemed a “major service change,” it now faces a mandatory six-month PRC review, followed by a Congressional review period. This long process could slow down necessary modernization efforts. For example, a much-needed change to optimize delivery routes that could save the USPS millions might be stuck in regulatory limbo for months, potentially delaying efficiency gains that could ultimately help keep postage rates stable. The bill introduces a powerful mechanism to prevent bad changes, but it also creates a massive procedural hurdle for good ones. The vagueness around what exactly constitutes a “significant impact” on a local district could also lead to disputes between the USPS and the PRC, adding even more layers of procedural friction.