Declarations and terminations of public health emergencies are performative utterances that shift the balance of governmental power and can change our world. They can provide and then extinguish the ability to provide grants andfunding, deploy the military, waive and modiht regulatory requirements, and curtail civil liberties, many times with limited legislative oversight. But public health emergency laws at every level are inconsistent at best and are being legislated in a reactionary manner that may limit the ability to effectively respond in juture public health emergencies. With such high stakes and during a time when executive agency authority is evolving, appropriate guidance on the felicity conditions for these performative utterances is thus urgently needed. Instead of simply accepting lengthy unfettered executive public health emergency powers or enacting strict legislative limitations on executive authority that could hinder an efective public health response in the future, this Article focuses on a singular first step in calling for a diverse, multi-disciplinary team of scholars and stakeholders to examine the existing web of public health emergency legislation and provide input and guidance on felicity conditions for declaring, continuing, and terminating specific public health emergencies that build in mechanisms for accountability and relevant, appropriate checks and balances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]