Sponsors
Introduced May 20, 2025 by Beth Van Duyne · Last progress May 20, 2025
The bill increases transparency, analytic rigor, and legal predictability for rulemaking at the cost of centralizing review authority, adding procedural burdens that can slow agency action, narrow judicial remedies, and raise administrative costs.
Taxpayers, small businesses, state governments, and the public will get more transparent, searchable rulemaking: clearer guidance/rule definitions, longer comment periods, required publication of studies/models, and centralized retrospective assessments (including public posting and OIRA reports) that make it easier to find, contest, and evaluate major rules.
Small businesses and taxpayers will face more predictable regulatory triggers and analyses because agencies must quantify costs/benefits, analyze alternatives, and use a $100 million threshold to identify 'major rules,' which can reduce unnecessary burdens and improve regulatory targeting.
Courts, regulated parties, and agencies gain clearer, more consistent legal review standards—courts review questions of law de novo, must consider full administrative records (or cited parts), and a statutory standard for 'substantial evidence'—improving predictability in litigation over agency actions.
Middle-class families, taxpayers, and regulated entities may see slower agency action and delayed health, safety, and environmental protections because extensive analytic, docketing, and review requirements (plus OIRA/Administrator review) add procedural steps and time to rulemaking.
Taxpayers and regulated parties may have reduced legal remedies and weaker judicial oversight because the bill narrows which APA subsections apply, limits relief for unlawful major rules (often to remand), and precludes review of certain Administrator actions, potentially leaving harmful rules in force longer.
Federal agencies and state partners may face concentration of review power in OIRA and the Administrator, which can centralize decisionmaking, delay agency action, and give the Administrator broad classification/waiver authorities that reduce transparency and agency autonomy.
Based on analysis of 9 sections of legislative text.
Strengthens OIRA oversight, defines 'major rule'/'guidance', requires more alternatives and cost‑benefit analysis for major rules, centralizes retrospective review, and narrows some judicial review.
Rewrites parts of the Administrative Procedure Act and related statutes to centralize and strengthen review of agency rulemaking under the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). It defines new terms (including “guidance,” “major guidance,” and “major rule” with a $100 million annual impact threshold), requires agencies to submit proposed rules to OIRA for review and delays publication until that review concludes, mandates more detailed consideration of alternatives and costs for major rules, and requires retrospective assessment of existing major rules published on a central website. The bill also changes standards and scope for judicial review (including specifying de novo review for legal questions unless statute says otherwise, narrowing review of certain guidance, and limiting relief for some procedural violations), adds a definition of “substantial evidence,” makes technical citation fixes across statutes, and states the changes apply only to rulemakings started after enactment.