This House resolution directs the chamber to rescind three subpoenas issued by the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack and to withdraw prior House recommendations that four named individuals be found in contempt of Congress. It also contains a sense-of-the-House finding that the Select Committee was illegitimate.
The resolution asks the Speaker to notify the Department of Justice that the listed subpoenas are ‘‘null and void’’ and declares the earlier contempt recommendations withdrawn and concluded without further enforcement. The measure is procedural and aimed at reversing specific committee actions rather than creating a new investigatory regime.
At a Glance
What It Does
The resolution rescinds subpoenas issued on September 23, 2021; October 6, 2021; and February 9, 2022, and withdraws three House resolutions that recommended contempt findings. It declares the Select Committee illegitimate and instructs the Speaker to notify the Department of Justice, citing sections 192 and 194 of title 2, U.S. Code.
Who It Affects
Directly affected are the four individuals named in the text — Stephen K. Bannon, Mark Randall Meadows, Daniel Scavino, Jr., and Peter K. Navarro — plus the House offices that sponsored and supported the Jan. 6 Select Committee and the staff who worked on those matters. The Department of Justice is implicated only to the extent the Speaker transmits notice per the cited statutory sections.
Why It Matters
The resolution attempts to negate specific enforcement instruments and formal House recommendations that triggered or supported legal process. For congressional staff, counsel, and compliance professionals, it raises questions about the persistence of subpoenas and contempt referrals in the institutional record and what administrative steps the House will take to implement the rescissions.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The resolution opens with historical findings and a series of grievances about how the January 6 Select Committee was constituted and operated. Those preamble paragraphs frame the sponsors’ conclusion that the committee lacked proper bipartisan composition and exceeded its authority, which sets the political and procedural rationale for the actions the resolution takes.
Substantively, the resolution has three operative threads. First, it states as the sense of the House that the Select Committee was illegitimate.
Second, it rescinds three named subpoenas issued on specific dates and identifies four individuals who were the targets of those subpoenas. Third, it withdraws three prior House resolutions that formally recommended that those individuals be held in contempt and orders that those recommendations be ‘‘withdrawn, dismissed, and otherwise ended and concluded without further proceedings or enforcement.’nProcedurally, the resolution instructs the Speaker to notify the Department of Justice that the subpoenas are rescinded and ‘‘shall be considered null and void,’’ expressly invoking sections 192 and 194 of title 2, United States Code, as the route for that notification.
The text does not prescribe additional House actions such as expungement of the record, return of materials, or directives to federal prosecutors; instead it frames the remedies as a House-level rescission and a formal notice to DOJ. The measure is submitted as a simple House resolution and referred to the Committee on Rules and the Committee on the Judiciary for consideration of relevant provisions.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The resolution identifies three subpoena dates to be rescinded: September 23, 2021; October 6, 2021; and February 9, 2022.
It names four individuals whose subpoenas are rescinded: Stephen K. Bannon, Mark Randall Meadows, Daniel Scavino, Jr.
and Peter K. Navarro.
The measure withdraws and directs conclusion of three prior House contempt recommendations: H. Res. 730 (Bannon, adopted Oct. 21, 2021), H. Res. 851 (Meadows, adopted Dec. 14, 2021), and H. Res. 1037 (Navarro and Scavino, adopted Apr. 6, 2022).
The resolution instructs the Speaker to notify the Department of Justice that the subpoenas are rescinded and ‘‘shall be considered null and void,’’ invoking 2 U.S.C. §§ 192 and 194 as the statutory basis for that notification.
Sponsors referred the resolution to the Committee on Rules and, additionally, to the Committee on the Judiciary for consideration of jurisdictional provisions.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Findings and rationale for rescission
The opening paragraphs summarize the sponsors’ view that the Select Committee was improperly constituted and partisan. Practically, the preamble functions to justify the later operative paragraphs; it catalogues perceived rule breaches (committee composition, subpoena authority, record preservation) that the sponsors say undercut the committee’s legitimacy. That narrative is the political foundation for the resolution rather than a source of legal authority.
Sense of the House declaring the Select Committee illegitimate
This clause expresses the chamber’s official view that the Select Committee was partisan and predetermined. As a ‘‘sense’’ clause, it is non-binding policy language; it has rhetorical force within the House and forms part of the resolution’s record but does not itself create enforceable obligations outside the House.
Rescission of subpoenas
This paragraph rescinds three specific subpoenas issued on the dates listed and ties those rescissions to four named individuals. The practical effect within the House is to instruct that those particular committee subpoenas are no longer valid as actions of the House. The text does not specify administrative follow-up such as notifications to recipients beyond the Speaker-to-DOJ instruction nor does it require committee files to be destroyed or altered.
Withdrawal of House contempt recommendations
These clauses withdraw three earlier House resolutions that had recommended contempt findings. Each withdrawal is phrased to terminate further proceedings or enforcement related to those recommendations. In House procedure terms, the resolution treats those prior recommendations as rescinded by the chamber, which removes them as live House actions, but it does not itself vacate court judgments or undo criminal process that may already be complete.
Instruction to Speaker to notify Department of Justice
The final clause instructs the Speaker to notify the Department of Justice that the subpoenas are rescinded and are to be considered null and void, and cites sections 192 and 194 of title 2, U.S. Code. This creates a specific administrative step for House leadership to communicate the chamber’s position to DOJ, but it stops short of prescribing how DOJ must respond; DOJ discretion over criminal or civil enforcement remains.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Stephen K. Bannon, Mark R. Meadows, Daniel Scavino, Jr., and Peter K. Navarro — the resolution removes active House subpoenas and withdraws the House’s contempt recommendations tied to those individuals, reducing formal congressional enforcement actions against them.
- Members of the House who opposed the Select Committee — the resolution provides a formal record supporting their view that the committee lacked legitimacy, which they can cite in future procedural or political arguments.
- House offices and staff aligned with the sponsors — rescission reduces the paper trail of certain committee enforcement actions and may limit the use of those specific subpoenas in internal House processes or future committee work.
- Counsel advising potential witnesses — the formal withdrawal clarifies that the House no longer asserts the listed subpoenas as current bases for compelled testimony or enforcement under those particular actions.
Who Bears the Cost
- January 6 Select Committee staff and members who compiled the record — the resolution challenges the institutional legitimacy of their work and may reduce the institutional protection that committee findings provided.
- Future committees seeking to enforce subpoenas — the measure establishes a precedent for rescinding subpoenas for political reasons, which could chill aggressive investigatory tactics or invite reciprocal rescissions.
- The Department of Justice (to the extent it relies on House referrals) — rescission and notice could complicate DOJ’s assessment of the provenance and political context of prior referrals, even though DOJ retains independent prosecutorial discretion.
- Entities and individuals relying on the committee’s record for investigations or litigation — withdrawal of House recommendations may diminish the evidentiary or political weight of the committee’s prior actions in ancillary proceedings.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between the House’s authority to correct or reverse its own prior actions for institutional or political reasons and the need to preserve the stability and enforceability of congressional investigatory tools and any downstream legal processes; rescinding subpoenas and withdrawing contempt recommendations can redress perceived partisan overreach but risks setting a precedent that investigatory instruments are reversible on partisan votes, which may undercut future committee efficacy and the predictability of congressional referrals.
The resolution creates a clear political and procedural statement but leaves key legal uncertainties unresolved. It instructs the Speaker to notify DOJ that specified subpoenas are rescinded and ‘‘shall be considered null and void,’’ yet it does not bind federal prosecutors or courts.
If a contempt referral already produced a criminal charge, conviction, or sentence, this resolution does not vacate those judicial outcomes; the text contains no mechanism for reopening or reversing judicial decisions. Likewise, the resolution does not order the destruction, return, or sealing of committee records, nor does it amend the legislative record of the House beyond withdrawing the named recommendations.
Implementation challenges follow. The Speaker’s notification to DOJ is an administrative act that transmits congressional intent, but DOJ retains independent authority to decide whether to pursue or dismiss matters referred earlier.
The resolution’s invocation of 2 U.S.C. §§ 192 and 194 signals a formal channel for notice, but the statutory language governs procedure and penalties for contempt rather than establishing a process for retroactive erasure of committee materials or court decisions. More practically, the resolution substitutes a political remedy for legal remedies, and parties assessing exposure—outside counsel, prosecutors, litigants—will need to determine case-by-case whether the rescission affects active matters.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.