Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Rules, and the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for…
This bill (REINS Act of 2025) amends the Administrative Procedure Act to require Congress to enact a joint resolution approving any "major rule" before that rule may take effect. It defines "major rule," prescribes expedited procedures and timelines for House and Senate consideration, requires agencies to submit extensive supporting materials and Comptroller General review, limits judicial review, exempts monetary policy and certain emergency or hunting/fishing rules, and directs a GAO study and budget scoring treatment for such rules.
Progressives emphasize harms to protections; conservatives emphasize reasserting Congress.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly articulated substantive statutory rewrite of the congressional review regime for agency rulemaking.
This bill (REINS Act of 2025) amends the Administrative Procedure Act to require Congress to enact a joint resolution approving any "major rule" before that rule may take effect.
It defines "major rule," prescribes expedited procedures and timelines for House and Senate consideration, requires agencies to submit extensive supporting materials and Comptroller General review, limits judicial review, exempts monetary policy and certain emergency or hunting/fishing rules, and directs a GAO study and budget scoring treatment for such rules.
High-impact, partisan administrative overhaul historically struggles in the Senate and attracts legal challenges; limited compromise features reduce enactment odds.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly articulated substantive statutory rewrite of the congressional review regime for agency rulemaking. It provides detailed mechanisms, definitions, and congressional procedures to implement the core policy change and includes oversight elements (Comptroller General assessments and a mandated GAO study).
Progressives emphasize harms to protections; conservatives emphasize reasserting Congress.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize harms to protections; conservatives emphasize reasserting Congress.
Likely views the bill as a substantial transfer of policymaking power from expert agencies to a polarized Congress.
Concerned it will delay or block regulations protecting health, environment, labor, and civil rights, while offering limited procedural transparency gains.
Sees legitimate goals—transparency and legislative accountability—balanced against procedural risks.
Views the bill as a large institutional change requiring careful safeguards, clearer definitions, and congressional capacity planning.
Likely strongly supportive as it constrains administrative agencies and restores legislative authority.
Views the act as a corrective to executive overreach and costly regulations imposed without direct Congressional approval.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
High-impact, partisan administrative overhaul historically struggles in the Senate and attracts legal challenges; limited compromise features reduce enactment odds.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize harms to protections; conservatives emphasize reasserting Congress.
High-impact, partisan administrative overhaul historically struggles in the Senate and attracts legal challenges; limited compromise featur…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly articulated substantive statutory rewrite of the congressional review regime for agency rulemaking. It provides detailed mechanisms, definitions, and con…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.