SCRUB Act of 2025

Bill Number

S. 648

Origin Chamber

Senate

Congress

119th Congress, Session 1

Policy Area

Government Operations and Politics

Status

Introduced

Latest Action

2025-02-20: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

Last Updated

2026-02-04T05:06:23Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose of the Legislation

The SCRUB Act of 2025 aims to reduce the overall burden of federal regulations on the U.S. economy by requiring agencies to offset the costs of new rules with repeals of existing ones and by mandating systematic reviews to identify and eliminate unnecessary or outdated regulations. It seeks to achieve a significant cut in regulatory costs while maintaining essential protections.

Key Provisions

• Definitions: Establishes terms like "agency" (federal departments issuing rules), "major rule" (rules with high economic costs, such as $100 million annually or impacts on competition and innovation), "rule" (agency-issued regulations), and "set of rules" (groups of rules implementing the same authority). Introduces "DOGE" as the United States DOGE Service, a new entity under the Executive Office of the President focused on deregulation.

• Title I: Regulatory Cut-Go Procedures:
• Agencies must repeal existing rules or sets of rules that meet repeal criteria (detailed in Section 201(d)) to fully offset the annual economic costs of any new rule.
• Allows preemptive repeals (before new rules) that can be "banked" for up to 2 years to meet offset requirements.
• Permits offsetting within the same statutory authority but requires net cost reductions across the agency's rules.
• Cost calculations focus only on quantifiable, monetized factors (ignoring unmeasured benefits or harms).
• The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) must certify cost estimates, which are included in rulemaking records and sent to Congress.
• Requirements end once an agency has repealed all qualifying burdensome rules.

• Title II: Retrospective and Future Reviews:
• Retrospective Review (Section 201): DOGE leads a review of the entire Code of Federal Regulations (the compilation of all federal rules) to identify rules or sets for repeal. Priorities include major rules, those over 15 years old, high-paperwork rules, those burdensome to small businesses, and rules that could be more efficient.
• Goal: Reduce total federal regulatory costs by at least 33% by July 4, 2026, with little loss in effectiveness.
• Repeal criteria (13 factors): Includes whether rules have achieved their purpose, justify costs with benefits, are obsolete due to technology or market changes, overlap with other rules, excessively burden compliance, inhibit innovation or competition, lack statutory basis, or disproportionately harm U.S. entities while benefiting others (e.g., foreign nations).
• Repealed rules cannot be reissued in similar form without new legislation.
• Future Review Plans (Section 202): Every new rule must include a plan for its review within 10 years, using criteria similar to those for repeals. Agencies should seek public input on proposed plans. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) can repeal rules that fail these reviews.

• Title III: Judicial Review and Effective Date:
• Non-compliance with cut-go or future review requirements is subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 7 of Title 5, U.S. Code), allowing courts to enforce compliance.
• The Act takes effect immediately upon enactment.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

• Introduces a mandatory "cut-go" offset system, similar to budget rules but applied to regulations, requiring new rules to be cost-neutral or cost-reducing—unlike current law, which has no such automatic repeal mandate.
• Creates a new executive entity (DOGE) to oversee deregulation, expanding the role of the Executive Office beyond existing OMB and OIRA functions.
• Mandates periodic reviews of all rules (retrospective and forward-looking), building on but strengthening Executive Order 13563 (on retrospective review) by setting specific goals, criteria, and deadlines.
• Prohibits reissuing repealed rules without congressional action, limiting agency discretion compared to prior practices.
• Limits cost analyses to monetized factors only, potentially simplifying but narrowing regulatory impact assessments under laws like the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Potential Impacts

• On Government Agencies: Increases workload for reviewing and repealing rules, potentially streamlining operations but risking reduced regulatory authority. OIRA and OMB gain certification and coordination roles, while DOGE centralizes deregulation efforts.
• On Citizens and Businesses: Could lower compliance costs, paperwork, and economic burdens, benefiting small businesses and consumers through reduced prices and innovation. However, it might weaken protections in areas like environment, health, or safety if rules are repealed without adequate replacements.
• On International Relations: By prioritizing rules that harm U.S. competitiveness or benefit foreign entities, it could improve trade positions but strain relations if repeals affect global standards (e.g., environmental or safety rules impacting exports).

Main Stakeholders Affected

• Federal Agencies: Primary implementers, facing mandates to repeal rules and plan reviews, which could alter their regulatory priorities.
• Businesses and Industries: Especially small entities and those in competitive sectors, who may see cost savings but could face uncertainty during reviews.
• Consumers and the Public: Potential beneficiaries of lower costs but at risk of reduced safeguards if protections are cut.
• Executive Branch Entities: DOGE, OMB, and OIRA, which gain new oversight powers.
• Congress and Courts: Congress must enact new laws for reissuing rules; courts can review agency compliance, increasing litigation potential.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

• Legal: Enhances judicial oversight of agency rulemaking, potentially leading to more lawsuits challenging non-compliance, but limits agencies' ability to consider non-economic factors in cost analyses, which could face challenges under statutes requiring balanced assessments (e.g., benefit-cost analyses).
• Constitutional: Shifts deregulatory power to the executive branch via DOGE, raising separation-of-powers questions if it overrides congressional intent in enabling statutes. The ban on reissuing rules without new laws reinforces congressional authority over regulations.
• Political: Promotes a deregulatory agenda by setting aggressive cost-reduction targets, which could polarize views—supporters see economic relief, critics worry about diminished public protections. Its focus on "unnecessarily burdensome" rules invites debate over what constitutes "effectiveness" in regulation.

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

Sponsor

Sen. Ernst, Joni [R-IA]

Recent Actions

• 2025-02-20: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
• 2025-02-20: Introduced in Senate

Bill Versions

• Searching for and Cutting Regulations that are Unnecessarily Burdensome Act of 2025 — issued 2025-02-20 — PDF (12 pages)