Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 24 - 18.
The bill requires OMB to report on agencies’ progress making regulations machine-readable and whether the eCFR and GPO editions are officially recognized. OMB must issue guidance within 18 months on using technology (including algorithmic tools and AI) to conduct retrospective regulatory reviews and train agency personnel.
Liberals worry tech-driven reviews could enable deregulatory rollbacks.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly structured administrative directive that prescribes roles, timelines, and specific deliverables to modernize retrospective regulatory review, while also incorporating reporting elements that make it partly a study/reporting measure.
The bill requires OMB to report on agencies’ progress making regulations machine-readable and whether the eCFR and GPO editions are officially recognized.
OMB must issue guidance within 18 months on using technology (including algorithmic tools and AI) to conduct retrospective regulatory reviews and train agency personnel.
Within two years agencies must submit plans to implement that guidance and then implement the plans within 180 days.
Narrow, administrative reform with modest costs increases chances; remaining uncertainty from AI concerns and resource implications.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly structured administrative directive that prescribes roles, timelines, and specific deliverables to modernize retrospective regulatory review, while also incorporating reporting elements that make it partly a study/reporting measure.
Liberals worry tech-driven reviews could enable deregulatory rollbacks.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals worry tech-driven reviews could enable deregulatory rollbacks.
Supports transparency and modernizing public access to regulations, but is cautious.
Concerned that technology-driven retrospective reviews could be framed to justify rolling back protections without safeguards.
Wants explicit accountability, public participation, and bias/impact assessments for any algorithmic tools.
Sees practical value in modernizing retrospective reviews and improving machine-readable access.
Generally supportive if the bill includes clear standards, cost estimates, and safeguards against politicized or poorly resourced implementation.
Wants measured pilot testing and transparent metrics.
Likely favorable because the bill promotes use of technology to identify burdensome, redundant, or obsolete regulations.
Views it as a tool to advance regulatory simplification and accountability.
May want stronger emphasis on eliminating regulatory burdens and ensuring OMB guidance facilitates deregulatory action.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow, administrative reform with modest costs increases chances; remaining uncertainty from AI concerns and resource implications.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals worry tech-driven reviews could enable deregulatory rollbacks.
Narrow, administrative reform with modest costs increases chances; remaining uncertainty from AI concerns and resource implications.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly structured administrative directive that prescribes roles, timelines, and specific deliverables to modernize retrospective regulatory review, while also…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.