A small clarification and adjustment to review frequency. v2 modifies the required review period for federal financial institution regulations from every 5 years to every 7 years. Additionally, v2 narrows the scope of a terminology update, specifically applying the replacement of "appropriate Federal banking agencies" to subsection (e)(1) only, rather than generally throughout the Act as proposed in v1.
REVIEW Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Timmons, William R. [R-SC-4]
- Committees
- Financial Services Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Feb 25, 2026
Bottom line
The bill mandates more frequent and comprehensive reviews by federal financial regulators to assess and streamline the cumulative impact of their regulations on the financial system and economy.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 to expand the scope of federal financial institutions regulatory agencies required to review their regulations, increase the frequency of these reviews from every 10 years to every 7 years, and mandate a new internal review of the cumulative impact of regulations. This internal review must assess effects on consumers, financial firms, credit availability, and overall economic activity, including quantifying costs and recommending streamlining.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill will reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens on financial institutions, fostering economic growth, increasing credit availability, and improving consumers' access to financial products. They contend that a regular, comprehensive review process is essential to ensure regulations remain relevant, efficient, and do not inadvertently stifle economic activity or create duplicative requirements.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that frequent regulatory reviews could lead to deregulation that compromises financial stability and consumer protection. They may contend that the focus on 'economic costs' could overshadow the benefits of regulations in preventing financial crises or protecting vulnerable populations, potentially weakening oversight of financial institutions.
The bill text is short and straightforward, making it highly accessible for a reader to understand its core provisions quickly.
Section 2(1)
Expansion of Agencies Subject to Review
This provision broadens the scope of agencies required to conduct regulatory reviews. It changes the term 'appropriate Federal banking agency' to 'Federal financial institutions regulatory agency,' meaning more types of financial regulators will be included in the mandated review process. This ensures a more comprehensive oversight of the financial sector's regulatory landscape.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that including all federal financial institutions regulatory agencies ensures a holistic approach to regulatory burden reduction across the entire financial system, preventing gaps where cumulative impacts might otherwise go unaddressed.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that expanding the scope without additional resources could strain smaller agencies or those with distinct mandates, potentially diverting resources from their primary supervisory functions.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies between achieving comprehensive regulatory oversight and potentially overextending the capacity of a wider range of agencies, some of which may have different regulatory focuses than traditional banking.
Section 2(2)(B) and 2(4)(B)
Increased Frequency of Regulatory Reviews
This section changes the required frequency of regulatory reviews from 'once every 10 years' to 'once every 7 years.' This means that federal financial institutions regulatory agencies will need to conduct their mandated reviews of regulations more often, leading to more frequent assessments of regulatory impact and opportunities for updates.
Section 2(3)(C)
Mandated Internal Review of Cumulative Impact
This is a core new requirement, mandating that each Federal financial institutions regulatory agency conduct an internal review specifically assessing the cumulative impact of its regulations. This review must cover effects on consumer access to financial products, availability of services to firms, credit availability, financial market liquidity, and the balance of benefits and costs for financial system safety and economic activity. It also requires quantifying economic costs and recommending streamlining.
Section 2(5)
Inclusion of Internal Review Findings in Congressional Reports
This provision amends the reporting requirements to Congress, mandating that the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) report include a summary of the findings and determinations from each agency's newly required internal review of cumulative impact. It also specifies that the report should address regulatory burdens identified by public comments and by the internal reviews.
The bill defines 'Federal financial institutions regulatory agency' by referencing section 1003 of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3302). This reference clarifies which specific agencies are covered by the new review requirements.
Section 2(6)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to avoid redundancy and ensure consistency with existing statutory definitions. It is not intended to be evasive.
Case for: Referencing existing law ensures legal consistency and avoids the need to re-list multiple agencies, which could lead to errors or omissions if the list changes over time.
Case against: For a casual reader, it requires looking up another statute to fully understand the scope of the bill, potentially obscuring the full impact.
Estimated impact: Clarifies the broad scope of the bill, including agencies like the OCC, Federal Reserve, FDIC, NCUA, FHFA, and CFPB.