Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Creates a Regulatory Oversight and Review Task Force chaired by the OMB Director with one OIRA representative and 16 private-sector appointees. The Task Force must evaluate Federal regulations that it finds inhibit competition, raise costs, impede energy or mining, or limit capital formation, solicit public input, publish recommendations, and deliver quarterly/annual reports.
Progressives worry about policy rollbacks; conservatives prioritize deregulation.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a reasonably well-specified commission/ reporting bill: it defines purpose and membership, creates public-facing intake and publication requirements, mandates periodic reporting, and embeds a statutory procedure for transmitting repeal recommendations to Congress.
Creates a Regulatory Oversight and Review Task Force chaired by the OMB Director with one OIRA representative and 16 private-sector appointees.
The Task Force must evaluate Federal regulations that it finds inhibit competition, raise costs, impede energy or mining, or limit capital formation, solicit public input, publish recommendations, and deliver quarterly/annual reports.
Annually after May 1 the Director must send Congress a “special message” listing regulations recommended for repeal, and the bill sets expedited, limited‑debate procedures in both Houses for joint resolutions that would repeal those listed rules.
Low-to-moderate because it is ideologically salient and could provoke litigation and institutional resistance, though it has limited fiscal cost and some bipartisan features.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a reasonably well-specified commission/ reporting bill: it defines purpose and membership, creates public-facing intake and publication requirements, mandates periodic reporting, and embeds a statutory procedure for transmitting repeal recommendations to Congress. It integrates with existing publication systems and congressional procedure and constrains funding to existing OMB resources.
Progressives worry about policy rollbacks; conservatives prioritize deregulation.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives worry about policy rollbacks; conservatives prioritize deregulation.
Skeptical.
Views the bill as a formally structured fast-track deregulatory mechanism that risks rolling back public protections.
Concern centers on heavy private-sector representation, limited congressional deliberation on repeals, and potential industry capture.
Cautiously mixed.
Values regulatory review to remove inefficient rules but worries about procedural shortcuts and safeguards.
Wants clear analytic standards, transparency, and balanced membership to reduce politicized outcomes.
Generally favorable.
Sees the bill as a practical, congressionally‑anchored tool to eliminate burdensome regulations and boost American competitiveness.
Appreciates private-sector leadership, expedited repeal procedures, and focus on energy, mining, and capital formation.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Low-to-moderate because it is ideologically salient and could provoke litigation and institutional resistance, though it has limited fiscal cost and some bipartisan features.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives worry about policy rollbacks; conservatives prioritize deregulation.
Low-to-moderate because it is ideologically salient and could provoke litigation and institutional resistance, though it has limited fiscal…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a reasonably well-specified commission/ reporting bill: it defines purpose and membership, creates public-facing intake and publication requirements, mandates peri…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.