Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
The SCRUB Act requires agencies to repeal existing rules so the annual measured costs of any new rule are offset by equal or greater regulatory cost reductions. It creates a DOGE Service within the Executive Office to review the Code of Federal Regulations, prioritize repeal candidates, and pursue a goal of reducing cumulative regulatory costs by 33% by July 4, 2026.
Use of only monetized costs: liberals oppose, conservatives favor
Lower chamber historically more willing to advance deregulatory measures; still faces opposition from affected stakeholders and procedural hurdles.
The SCRUB Act requires agencies to repeal existing rules so the annual measured costs of any new rule are offset by equal or greater regulatory cost reductions.
It creates a DOGE Service within the Executive Office to review the Code of Federal Regulations, prioritize repeal candidates, and pursue a goal of reducing cumulative regulatory costs by 33% by July 4, 2026.
Agencies must include 10-year review plans for new rules, OIRA must certify agency cost calculations, and cost calculations may not use non‑monetized or unquantified factors.
Content is large-scale and politically polarizing with ambitious targets and legal risks; passage requires substantial consensus unlikely on content alone.
How solid the drafting looks.
Use of only monetized costs: liberals oppose, conservatives favor
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Use of only monetized costs: liberals oppose, conservatives favor
This persona would likely view the bill as a broad deregulatory mandate that privileges quantified cost estimates over public health, safety, and environmental benefits.
They would be particularly alarmed by the prohibition on using non‑monetized benefits in cost calculations and the one‑time 33% reduction goal.
They would see the DOGE Service and the reissue ban as risks to agencies' ability to protect vulnerable populations.
A centrist would see reasonable features—periodic retrospective review and eliminating obsolete rules—but worry about rigid mechanics and measurement limits.
They would support modernizing regulations while seeking safeguards to avoid eroding meaningful protections.
The explicit ban on non‑monetized benefits and a firm 33% target raise practical and legal concerns.
This persona would likely view the bill favorably as a strong, enforceable deregulatory framework that prevents net increases in regulatory costs.
They would welcome the cut‑go requirement, OIRA certification, and a mechanism to systematically eliminate burdensome rules.
Concerns would be pragmatic—implementation efficiency and preventing rulemaking gridlock—rather than philosophical.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Content is large-scale and politically polarizing with ambitious targets and legal risks; passage requires substantial consensus unlikely on content alone.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Use of only monetized costs: liberals oppose, conservatives favor
Content is large-scale and politically polarizing with ambitious targets and legal risks; passage requires substantial consensus unlikely o…
Pro readers get the full perspective split, passage barriers, legislative design review, stakeholder impact map, and lens-based policy tradeoff analysis for SCRUB Act of 2025.
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.