Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each…
The Regulation Reduction Act of 2025 would require federal agencies to repeal three existing rules that are, where practicable, related to a proposed new rule before issuing that new rule. For major rules, agencies must also ensure the new rule's cost is less than or equal to the cost of the repealed rules, with cost certification by OIRA; agencies must publish repealed rules and submit a 90-day review identifying costly, duplicative, or outdated rules.
Progressives emphasize threats to public-health and environmental protections
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly creates a substantive change to administrative rulemaking by conditioning issuance of new rules on repeal of existing rules and by requiring OIRA cost certification for major rules.
The Regulation Reduction Act of 2025 would require federal agencies to repeal three existing rules that are, where practicable, related to a proposed new rule before issuing that new rule.
For major rules, agencies must also ensure the new rule's cost is less than or equal to the cost of the repealed rules, with cost certification by OIRA; agencies must publish repealed rules and submit a 90-day review identifying costly, duplicative, or outdated rules.
High probability of House approval in a deregulatory session but unlikely to attract necessary Senate consensus or executive agreement.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly creates a substantive change to administrative rulemaking by conditioning issuance of new rules on repeal of existing rules and by requiring OIRA cost certification for major rules. It sets out several concrete requirements but leaves substantial ambiguities and implementation gaps.
Progressives emphasize threats to public-health and environmental protections
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize threats to public-health and environmental protections
Likely views the bill as a broadly deregulatory constraint that risks rolling back public-health, safety, labor, and environmental protections.
Concern focuses on a mechanical "three-for-one" repeal rule and cost-only tests that can ignore benefits and distributional effects.
The OIRA certification requirement raises worries about politicized review of regulatory protections.
Sees merit in trimming obsolete or duplicative regulation but worries the statute's rigid three-for-one requirement is arbitrary and could impede necessary rules.
Concerns focus on how "cost" is measured, the definition of "related" rules, and centralizing certification at OIRA.
Would favor targeted reforms with clear methodological safeguards.
Likely favors the bill as a pro-growth, deregulatory measure that curbs regulatory accumulation and forces agencies to eliminate outdated rules.
The three-for-one rule and OIRA cost certification are attractive accountability mechanisms.
May want stronger limits or broader application to reduce regulatory burden faster.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
High probability of House approval in a deregulatory session but unlikely to attract necessary Senate consensus or executive agreement.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize threats to public-health and environmental protections
High probability of House approval in a deregulatory session but unlikely to attract necessary Senate consensus or executive agreement.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly creates a substantive change to administrative rulemaking by conditioning issuance of new rules on repeal of existing rules and by requiring OIRA cost certifi…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.