Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
The ERASER Act requires federal agencies to repeal at least three existing notice-and-comment rules (related where practicable) before issuing a new rule. For major rules, agencies must repeal three related rules and ensure the new rule’s cost is less than or equal to the repealed rules’ costs, with OIRA certification.
Liberals emphasize lost protections and ignored non‑monetary benefits.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes clear substantive constraints on agencies' authority to issue rules and adds oversight/reporting duties, but it leaves substantial implementation detail unspecified.
The ERASER Act requires federal agencies to repeal at least three existing notice-and-comment rules (related where practicable) before issuing a new rule.
For major rules, agencies must repeal three related rules and ensure the new rule’s cost is less than or equal to the repealed rules’ costs, with OIRA certification.
The bill excludes interpretative and internal procedural rules, applies to rules imposing costs on non‑governmental persons or state/local governments, and directs the GAO to report on the number and total estimated cost of rules one year after enactment and every five years thereafter.
Broad, ideologically charged restriction on rulemaking faces substantial opposition and procedural hurdles despite support from deregulatory constituencies.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes clear substantive constraints on agencies' authority to issue rules and adds oversight/reporting duties, but it leaves substantial implementation detail unspecified. It defines primary obligations (repeal three rules before issuing a rule; cost parity and OIRA certification for major rules; GAO periodic reporting) while omitting operational specifics, enforcement mechanisms, funding considerations, and precise measurement methodologies.
Liberals emphasize lost protections and ignored non‑monetary benefits.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals emphasize lost protections and ignored non‑monetary benefits.
Likely critical.
They will view the bill as a rigid deregulatory constraint that risks eliminating public health, environmental, labor, and civil-rights protections.
They will emphasize that cost comparisons ignore non‑monetary benefits and distributional impacts.
Mixed view.
Appreciates efforts to control regulatory accumulation and improve accountability, but worries the three‑for‑one and cost equality rules are rigid and may create perverse incentives or legal complexity.
Generally supportive.
Sees the bill as a strong mechanism to curb regulatory growth, reduce burdens on businesses and citizens, and force federal agencies to prioritize deregulation.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Broad, ideologically charged restriction on rulemaking faces substantial opposition and procedural hurdles despite support from deregulatory constituencies.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals emphasize lost protections and ignored non‑monetary benefits.
Broad, ideologically charged restriction on rulemaking faces substantial opposition and procedural hurdles despite support from deregulator…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes clear substantive constraints on agencies' authority to issue rules and adds oversight/reporting duties, but it leaves substantial implementation detail u…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.