Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
The bill requires heads of federal agencies, before issuing any "major rule," to estimate the rule's cost, identify existing agency rules that could be repealed to offset that cost, repeal any such identified rules, and publish a statement in the Federal Register indicating whether the rule is budget neutral. Definitions expand "rule" to include interpretative rules and guidance, define "cost" to include costs to the public to understand and implement the rule, and adopt the standard $100 million threshold for a "major rule."
Progressive fears rollbacks of protections; conservatives see deregulatory benefit.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill sets a clear, narrow administrative objective and supplies basic statutory definitions, but it provides limited operational detail, no resourcing or oversight provisions, and few safeguards for foreseeable edge cases.
The bill requires heads of federal agencies, before issuing any "major rule," to estimate the rule's cost, identify existing agency rules that could be repealed to offset that cost, repeal any such identified rules, and publish a statement in the Federal Register indicating whether the rule is budget neutral.
Definitions expand "rule" to include interpretative rules and guidance, define "cost" to include costs to the public to understand and implement the rule, and adopt the standard $100 million threshold for a "major rule."
Technically narrow but politically charged deregulatory mandate, operational challenges, and weak compromise features lower enactment odds.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill sets a clear, narrow administrative objective and supplies basic statutory definitions, but it provides limited operational detail, no resourcing or oversight provisions, and few safeguards for foreseeable edge cases. The text establishes duties and sequencing in broad strokes but leaves significant practical questions about methodology, interactions with existing law, and enforcement unanswered.
Progressive fears rollbacks of protections; conservatives see deregulatory benefit.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressive fears rollbacks of protections; conservatives see deregulatory benefit.
Likely skeptical or opposed.
The requirement to repeal existing rules to make a new major rule "budget neutral" could force rollbacks of public-protection regulations and limit agencies' ability to regulate for health, safety, environment, or civil rights.
Transparency is welcome, but the offset mandate is viewed as a deregulatory constraint.
Mixed view.
Appreciates transparency and accountability but worries about legal ambiguity, administrative burden, and unintended barriers to necessary regulation.
Would want clearer definitions and narrowly tailored exceptions for urgent or protective rules.
Generally supportive.
Sees the bill as a tool to restrain regulatory growth, force offsets, and increase agency accountability.
Views inclusion of guidance as useful to prevent regulatory circumvention through non-binding documents.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technically narrow but politically charged deregulatory mandate, operational challenges, and weak compromise features lower enactment odds.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressive fears rollbacks of protections; conservatives see deregulatory benefit.
Technically narrow but politically charged deregulatory mandate, operational challenges, and weak compromise features lower enactment odds.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill sets a clear, narrow administrative objective and supplies basic statutory definitions, but it provides limited operational detail, no resourcing or oversight provisi…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.