Regulation Reduction Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Bice, Stephanie I. [R-OK-5]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jan 14, 2025
Bottom line
The bill establishes a "three-for-one" regulatory reduction mandate for federal agencies, aiming to curb the growth of the regulatory state and reduce compliance burdens on regulated entities.
What it actually does
This bill mandates that federal agencies must repeal at least three existing regulations before issuing any new regulation that imposes costs or responsibilities on non-governmental persons or state/local governments. For new "major rules," the bill further requires that the cost of the new rule must be less than or equal to the cost of the three repealed rules, with certification from the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) Administrator.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill will significantly reduce the overall burden of federal regulations on businesses, individuals, and state/local governments, fostering economic growth and innovation by systematically eliminating outdated, ineffective, or duplicative rules. They contend it promotes a more efficient, accountable, and less intrusive regulatory environment.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that such a broad and rigid mandate could hinder agencies' ability to respond effectively to emerging public health, safety, or environmental challenges, potentially forcing the repeal of beneficial or essential regulations simply to make way for new, necessary ones. They may also raise concerns about the practical difficulties and potential for manipulation in accurately assessing and comparing regulatory costs.
The bill is very short and clearly written, making it highly accessible for a reader to understand its core provisions quickly.
Section 2(1)
Three-for-One Rule Repeal for New Regulations
This provision mandates that a federal agency cannot issue any new regulation (rule) that imposes costs or responsibilities on non-governmental entities or state/local governments unless it first repeals three or more existing regulations. These repealed rules should, where practicable, be related to the new rule being issued, aiming to reduce the net number of regulations.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision directly addresses regulatory bloat by ensuring that the regulatory landscape shrinks or at least remains stable, preventing a continuous increase in compliance costs for regulated entities and fostering economic growth.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that this requirement could create an artificial barrier to necessary new regulations, potentially forcing agencies to repeal beneficial or essential rules simply to meet the numerical quota, regardless of their actual impact or relevance.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the desire to reduce the cumulative regulatory burden against the need for agencies to issue new regulations to address evolving societal needs, technological advancements, or market failures.
Section 2(2)
Three-for-One Repeal and Cost Neutrality for Major Rules
For "major rules" (as defined by existing federal law), agencies must not only repeal three or more related existing rules, but the cost of the new major rule must also be less than or equal to the cost of the rules repealed. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) is required to certify this cost neutrality, adding a layer of fiscal discipline to high-impact regulatory actions.
Section 2(3) and 2(4)
Publication and Scope of Repeal Requirements
Any rule repealed under this Act must be published in the Federal Register, ensuring public transparency. The requirements apply to any rule or major rule that imposes a cost or responsibility on a non-governmental person or a State or local government. It explicitly excludes rules related to internal agency policy or procurement, or rules that are being revised to be less burdensome, from the repeal mandate.
Section 2(5)
Agency Review of Existing Rules and Report to Congress
Within 90 days of the bill's enactment, the head of each federal agency must submit a report to Congress and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This report must include a comprehensive review of all agency rules, identifying those that are costly, ineffective, duplicative, or outdated, along with a list of any other unnecessary regulatory restrictions.
Defines "major rule" by referencing section 804 of title 5, United States Code. This definition is crucial because major rules are subject to more stringent repeal and cost-neutrality requirements than other rules.
Section 2(6)(B)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to avoid reprinting lengthy statutory definitions and to ensure consistency with existing administrative law frameworks for regulatory review.
Case for: Ensures legal precision and consistency with the established framework for classifying and reviewing significant federal regulations, leveraging existing legal definitions.
Case against: Requires external research for a full understanding, potentially obscuring the full impact for readers unfamiliar with the specific criteria of 5 U.S.C. 804, which defines a major rule as one that has resulted in or is likely to result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more, or other significant impacts.
Estimated impact: Determines which rules are subject to the most stringent cost-neutrality and repeal requirements, affecting a significant portion of high-impact federal regulations.