Technical corrections only. The diff updates the attestation signature in the House-passed version of the bill. No substantive policy changes were made between v2 and v3.
Information Quality Assurance Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. McClain, Lisa C. [R-MI-9]
- Committees
- Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Feb 25, 2026
Bottom line
This bill aims to enhance transparency and the scientific rigor of federal agency rulemaking and guidance by requiring better information quality and public disclosure of underlying data, but without providing additional funding for these new mandates.
What it actually does
This bill mandates the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to update guidelines for federal agencies to ensure the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of "influential information or evidence" used in developing rules and guidance. It also requires agencies to make critical factual material relied upon for rulemaking and guidance publicly available in an open Government data asset format, with exceptions for protected information. The bill explicitly states that no additional funds are authorized for its implementation.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue this bill will improve the quality and trustworthiness of federal regulations and guidance by ensuring agencies use the best available evidence and make their foundational data transparent. This fosters public trust, allows for better public input, and reduces arbitrary decision-making, leading to more effective and defensible policies.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that these requirements, particularly without additional funding, could create undue burdens on agencies, slow down the rulemaking process, or lead to increased litigation over data quality. They may contend that it could hinder timely and effective governance by diverting resources from other critical agency functions or by creating new avenues for procedural challenges.
The bill is relatively short and clearly structured, making it accessible for a reader to understand its core provisions within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2(a), adding new 44 U.S.C. 3522(a)
OMB to Update Information Quality Guidelines
This provision requires the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to update existing Information Quality Act guidelines within one year of the bill's enactment. The updated guidelines must provide policy and procedural guidance to federal agencies to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of "influential information or evidence" used in developing or issuing public rules and guidance, or in informing the public about these actions.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this update is crucial for modernizing data quality standards, ensuring that federal decisions are based on the most reliable and robust evidence available, thereby improving policy outcomes and public confidence in government actions.
Critics contend
Critics might express concern that overly stringent guidelines could create bureaucratic hurdles, slow down agency work, or be used to challenge legitimate scientific findings by demanding unattainable levels of "perfection" in data.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the desire for high-quality information to inform federal policy with the practical realities of agency resources and the need for timely decision-making.
Section 2(a), adding new 44 U.S.C. 3522(b)
Agency-Specific Information Quality Guidelines and Complaint Process
Within one year of OMB's guideline update, each federal agency must update its own information quality guidelines to ensure reliance on the "best reasonably available information and evidence that is fit-for-purpose" for influential information. Agencies must publish these updated guidelines, maintain administrative mechanisms for seeking and obtaining the correction of non-compliant influential information, and include information about complaints received in their annual reports.
Section 2(a), adding new 44 U.S.C. 3522(c)(1)
Mandated Public Disclosure of Critical Factual Material
This section requires OMB to issue guidance within one year directing agencies to make "critical factual material" relied upon for rulemaking or guidance publicly available in the relevant docket or administrative record. For notice-and-comment processes, agencies must provide notice and opportunity to comment on this material. Any revisions to critical factual material that materially affect the rulemaking or guidance must also be made available in a timely manner.
Section 2(a), adding new 44 U.S.C. 3522(c)(2) & (3)
Disclosure Exceptions and Open Data Format
The bill specifies that public disclosure must be consistent with existing laws (e.g., Freedom of Information Act, privacy laws, intellectual property rights) and implemented to the maximum extent feasible considering costs. Information prohibited from disclosure by any statute is exempt. If critical factual material is not disclosed, agencies must explain why and describe steps to increase access. Disclosed material must be made available as an "open Government data asset" where possible, or by citation/description if exceptions apply, including identifying the rights holder.
Section 2(c)
No Additional Funds Authorized
This section explicitly states that no additional funds are authorized to be appropriated for the purpose of carrying out this Act or the amendments made by this Act. This means that federal agencies must implement all the new requirements and mandates outlined in the bill using their existing resources and budgets.
This subsection defines "influential information or evidence" as information or evidence about which an agency can reasonably determine that reliance on or dissemination of the information will have or does have a clear and substantial impact on important public actions, policies or statements or on important private sector decisions.
Section 2(a), adding new 44 U.S.C. 3522(d)(2)
Why it matters:While it is standard legislative practice to consolidate definitions at the end of a section, the specific wording of this definition is critical to understanding the scope and applicability of the entire bill's mandates.
Case for: Proponents would argue this definition provides necessary clarity, focusing agency efforts on information that truly matters for public policy and private decisions, preventing overreach or trivial application of the new requirements.
Case against: Opponents might argue the definition is subjective, relying on terms like "reasonably determine," "clear and substantial impact," and "important public actions," which could lead to inconsistent application across agencies or become a point of contention and litigation, potentially allowing agencies to avoid disclosure for certain information.
Estimated impact: This definition dictates the scope of all new requirements regarding information quality and public disclosure, significantly influencing which agency actions and data are subject to the Act's enhanced scrutiny and transparency mandates.