Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2025

Bill Number

S. 485

Origin Chamber

Senate

Congress

119th Congress, Session 1

Policy Area

Government Operations and Politics

Status

Introduced

Latest Action

2025-02-06: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

Last Updated

2026-05-01T18:38:32Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose of the Legislation

The bill, titled the "Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2025" (REINS Act), aims to boost accountability and openness in how federal agencies create rules. It addresses concerns that Congress has given too much power to the executive branch by requiring Congress to explicitly approve major rules—those with big economic or social impacts—before they can take effect. This is meant to ensure regulations are more precise, better overseen, and truly reflect Congress's constitutional role in making laws.

Key Provisions

• Submission and Review Process: Before any rule takes effect, agencies must submit a detailed report to Congress and the Government Accountability Office (GAO), including the rule text, its classification as major or nonmajor, cost-benefit analysis, economic effects (like job impacts), and public access to supporting data. The GAO reviews major rules for compliance and potential burdens on private sectors.
• Approval for Major Rules: Major rules (defined as those with $100 million+ annual economic effects, major cost increases, or significant harms to competition/jobs/innovation) cannot take effect without a joint resolution of approval passed by both houses of Congress within 70 session/legislative days. If not approved, the rule is void. Expedited procedures limit debate and amendments to speed up votes.
• Disapproval for Nonmajor Rules: Nonmajor rules (all others) take effect unless Congress passes a joint resolution disapproving them within 60 days, using similar fast-track processes.
• Exemptions and Exceptions:
• President can allow temporary (90-day) effect for emergencies, criminal law enforcement, national security, or trade agreements.
• No review for monetary policy by the Federal Reserve, deregulatory actions (rule reductions), or certain hunting/fishing/camping rules.
• Rules issued without public notice (for good cause) can take effect immediately if nonmajor.
• Regulatory Budget and Planning: Agencies must publish a semi-annual agenda of planned rules, including costs/benefits and job estimates. New significant rules require offsetting deregulatory actions to stay within a federal "budget" limiting net regulatory costs (set by the Office of Management and Budget; default is zero increase). Guidance documents (non-binding agency interpretations) must be posted online in one spot.
• Rule Expiration and Review: Major rules expire after 10 years unless Congress approves an extension via joint resolution. Existing major rules are reviewed in batches (10% per year for 10 years); unapproved ones lapse.
• Enforcement Tools:
• Private lawsuits allowed to challenge misclassification of rules as nonmajor or agency noncompliance, potentially invalidating rules.
• Affirmative defense in court/administrative cases if a rule's basis in law was unforeseeable to an average person.
• Limited judicial review: Courts can't second-guess Congress's approval/disapproval but can check if procedures were followed.
• Other Measures: Expands "rule" definition to include significant guidance documents. Requires a GAO study on the number and total economic cost of existing rules. Budget rules assume unapproved major rules have no fiscal impact.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

This amends the Congressional Review Act (CRA, part of Chapter 8 of Title 5, U.S. Code), which currently allows Congress to disapprove rules after they take effect but doesn't require approval. Key shifts include:

• Flipping the CRA to mandate proactive approval for major rules (instead of reactive disapproval).
• Adding a regulatory cost budget, rule sunsets (automatic expiration), and mandatory reviews of old rules—none in the original CRA.
• Incorporating guidance documents (previously often outside formal rulemaking) into the "rule" definition and review process.
• Enhancing transparency with online publication requirements and GAO assessments.
• Updating budget laws to exclude unapproved rules' effects from deficit calculations.

Potential Impacts

• On Government Agencies: Increased paperwork, delays in issuing rules (potentially halting major regulations for months), and pressure to prioritize cost offsets, which could slow environmental, health, or safety protections but encourage deregulation.
• On Citizens and Businesses: Fewer unchecked regulations might reduce compliance burdens and economic costs, benefiting small businesses and consumers with lower prices. However, it could lead to regulatory gaps in areas like worker safety or pollution controls if approvals stall. Private lawsuits empower affected individuals/companies to block rules.
• On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, but exemptions for trade agreement rules ensure smooth implementation of U.S. commitments without congressional delays. National security exemptions protect foreign policy actions.

Main Stakeholders Affected

• Congress: Gains direct veto power over major rules, shifting influence from agencies but increasing workload with mandatory votes.
• Executive Branch Agencies (e.g., EPA, FDA, OSHA): Face stricter oversight, needing congressional buy-in for big rules, which could limit their independence in interpreting laws.
• Businesses and Industries: Potentially lighter regulatory load through cost budgets and expirations, aiding competitiveness, but uncertainty from reviews/lawsuits.
• Citizens and Advocacy Groups: Environmental, consumer, or labor groups may struggle to advance protective rules; individuals gain tools to challenge unclear or burdensome ones.
• GAO and OMB: Expanded roles in reviewing compliance, budgeting, and studying rules.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

• Constitutional: Reinforces Article I's grant of legislative power to Congress, arguing against excessive delegation to the executive (a long-debated issue in separation of powers). Could face court challenges if seen as unconstitutionally constraining executive authority under existing statutes.
• Legal: Limits judicial review to procedural checks, reducing courts' role in substantive rule disputes. The affirmative defense protects against vague rules, promoting clearer laws. Private right of action democratizes challenges but risks flooding courts.
• Political: Politicizes rulemaking, as approvals depend on congressional majorities—potentially leading to gridlock under divided government or partisan blocks on rules. Encourages more detailed legislation from Congress to avoid agency overreach, but may overwhelm legislative schedules. As a Republican-led bill (sponsored by Sen. Paul and others), it aligns with efforts to curb "administrative state" growth.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Sen. Paul, Rand [R-KY]

Cosponsors (23)

Sen. Blackburn, Marsha [R-TN], Sen. Britt, Katie Boyd [R-AL], Sen. Budd, Ted [R-NC], Sen. Cramer, Kevin [R-ND], Sen. Crapo, Mike [R-ID], Sen. Lankford, James [R-OK], Sen. Lee, Mike [R-UT], Sen. Lummis, Cynthia M. [R-WY], Sen. Marshall, Roger [R-KS], Sen. Moreno, Bernie [R-OH], Sen. Risch, James E. [R-ID], Sen. Scott, Rick [R-FL], Sen. Rounds, Mike [R-SD], Sen. Schmitt, Eric [R-MO], Sen. Sheehy, Tim [R-MT], Sen. Tuberville, Tommy [R-AL], Sen. Grassley, Chuck [R-IA], Sen. Daines, Steve [R-MT], Sen. Curtis, John R. [R-UT], Sen. Young, Todd [R-IN], Sen. Husted, Jon [R-OH], Sen. Barrasso, John [R-WY], Sen. Sullivan, Dan [R-AK]

Recent Actions

• 2025-02-06: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
• 2025-02-06: Introduced in Senate

Bill Versions

• Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2025 — issued 2025-02-06 — PDF (39 pages)