S. 644 (119th)Bill Overview

Modernizing Retrospective Regulatory Review Act

Government Operations and Politics|Administrative law and regulatory proceduresComputers and information technology
Sponsor
Cosponsors
Support
Republican
Introduced
Feb 20, 2025
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageCommittee

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

Introduced
Committee
Floor
President
Law
Congressional Activities
01 · The brief
Plain-English summaryWhat this bill actually does

Requires OMB (through OIRA) to report on agencies making regulations machine-readable and on eCFR recognition; issue guidance (within 18 months) for agencies to use technology, including algorithmic tools and AI, to conduct retrospective regulatory reviews and train staff; require each agency to submit a two-year plan to OIRA and specified congressional committees for implementing that guidance and to identify regulations or categories for review; agencies must implement their plan components within 180 days after submission.

Why people may split

Liberals emphasize risks of deregulatory use and AI bias

Watch point

Technocratic, low-cost reforms likely to attract bipartisan support; committee action and floor scheduling remain gating factors.

Requires OMB (through OIRA) to report on agencies making regulations machine-readable and on eCFR recognition; issue guidance (within 18 months) for agencies to use technology, including algorithmic tools and AI, to conduct retrospective regulatory reviews and train staff; require each agency to submit a two-year plan to OIRA and specified congressional committees for implementing that guidance and to identify regulations or categories for review; agencies must implement their plan components within 180 days after submission.

Passage40/100

Administrative-modernization bills often advance, but interchamber procedures and emerging AI concerns create moderate risk of delay or amendment.

CredibilityPartial

How solid the drafting looks.

Contention35/100

Liberals emphasize risks of deregulatory use and AI bias

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Likely benefits vs burdens50% / 50%
Federal agenciesFederal agencies

These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.

Likely helped
  • Federal agenciesTechnology use will likely speed retrospective reviews, reducing agency time spent identifying problematic regulations.
  • Potential benefitRemoving obsolete or duplicative regulations may lower compliance costs for businesses and regulated entities.
  • Potential benefitMachine-readable regulations improve public access, searchability, and third-party data analysis.
Likely burdened
  • Potential burdenAgencies may face increased administrative and procurement costs to adopt technology and convert documents.
  • Potential burdenSmaller agencies could lack budgets or expertise to implement the guidance effectively.
  • Federal agenciesCentralized OMB guidance may reduce agency discretion in setting retrospective review priorities.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Liberals emphasize risks of deregulatory use and AI bias
Progressive60%

Supportive of improved transparency and accessibility for regulations, but cautious about formalizing AI-driven review methods.

Concerned retrospective reviews could be used to aggressively roll back protections unless safeguards and public participation are required.

Split reaction
Centrist75%

Generally favorable to modernizing regulatory review and improving efficiency, while wanting clear cost estimates, timelines, and safeguards.

Will weigh practical implementation, oversight, and whether agencies receive adequate resources.

Leans supportive
Conservative80%

Generally supportive because the bill facilitates identification and reduction of burdensome regulations using technology.

May view it as a tool to advance deregulation and regulatory simplification, though some may want stronger mandates to remove rules.

Leans supportive
04 · Can it pass?

The path through Congress.

Introduced

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Committee

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Floor

Still ahead

President

Still ahead

Law

Still ahead

Passage likelihood40/100

Administrative-modernization bills often advance, but interchamber procedures and emerging AI concerns create moderate risk of delay or amendment.

Scope and complexity
52%
Scopemoderate
52%
Complexitymedium
Why this could stall
  • No explicit funding or cost estimates included
  • Agency capacity to procure and operate suggested technology
05 · Recent votes

Recent votes on the bill.

No vote history yet

The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.

06 · Go deeper

Go deeper than the headline read.

Included on this page

Liberals emphasize risks of deregulatory use and AI bias

Administrative-modernization bills often advance, but interchamber procedures and emerging AI concerns create moderate risk of delay or ame…

Unlocked analysis

Pro readers get the full perspective split, passage barriers, legislative design review, stakeholder impact map, and lens-based policy tradeoff analysis for Modernizing Retrospective Regulatory Review Act.

Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.

Perspective breakdownsPassage barriersLegislative design reviewStakeholder impact map
Open full analysis