American Family Cost-of-Living Relief Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Mace, Nancy [R-SC-1]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 30, 2026
Bottom line
This bill aims to curb federal regulations that increase household expenses by mandating cost impact analyses, restricting the promulgation of costly new rules, and establishing judicial review for agency compliance.
What it actually does
This bill amends Chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code, to require federal agencies to conduct a 'household cost impact analysis' for all proposed rules. It mandates that agencies assess whether a rule would increase average annual household costs by $50 or more and generally prohibits the promulgation of such rules, with narrow exceptions for legally required rules or those addressing national security threats, major disasters, or emergencies. The bill also establishes judicial review for agency compliance and requires the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to annually report on major rules that have increased household costs.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill would provide significant relief to American families by preventing federal agencies from issuing regulations that drive up the cost of living. They contend it introduces much-needed transparency and accountability into the rulemaking process, forcing agencies to consider the direct financial burden on households and explore less costly alternatives.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that this bill could severely hamstring agencies' ability to address critical public health, safety, and environmental issues, as many necessary regulations could be deemed to 'substantially increase household costs.' They might also contend that the $50 threshold is too low and that the exceptions are too narrow, potentially leading to regulatory paralysis or forcing agencies to pursue less effective, cheaper alternatives.
The bill is short and relatively straightforward, allowing a reader to grasp its core intent and mechanisms quickly.
Section 2(a), inserting 5 U.S.C. 553A(a)
Mandating Initial Household Cost Impact Analysis for Proposed Rules
Before proposing any new rule, federal agencies must prepare an initial analysis. This analysis must state whether the rule would increase average annual household costs by $50 or more, describe how different income levels would be affected, list affected goods or services, and suggest alternative rules that would not substantially increase costs. This analysis must be published for public comment.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision ensures agencies are transparent about the financial burdens new rules might impose on families, allowing the public to provide informed feedback and hold agencies accountable.
Critics contend
Critics might contend this adds another layer of bureaucratic red tape, potentially delaying or complicating essential rulemaking without necessarily improving regulatory quality.
Tradeoffs
Balances the desire for regulatory transparency and public input against potential increases in administrative burden and rulemaking timelines for agencies.
Section 2(a), inserting 5 U.S.C. 553A(b)
Mandating Final Household Cost Impact Analysis for Final Rules
After receiving public comments on a proposed rule and its initial cost analysis, agencies must prepare a final household cost impact analysis. This final analysis must include the same information as the initial one, plus a statement of significant issues raised by public comments or hearings, and a description of how those comments affected the agency's assessment of the rule's household cost impact.
Section 2(a), inserting 5 U.S.C. 553A(c)
Restriction on Finalizing Rules that Substantially Increase Household Costs
This provision generally prohibits agencies from finalizing any rule if their final household cost impact analysis determines it would 'substantially increase household costs' (defined as $50 or more per year). There are two exceptions: if the rule is required by law, or if it's deemed necessary to address an imminent national security threat, a major disaster, or an emergency declared by the President, provided the agency certifies this threat to Congress.
Section 2(a), inserting 5 U.S.C. 553B
Establishing Judicial Review for Household Cost Impact Analysis Compliance
Any household adversely affected by a final agency action related to a rule subject to these new requirements can seek judicial review to ensure the agency complied with the household cost impact analysis provisions. Courts that already have jurisdiction to review rules under existing law will also have jurisdiction to review claims of noncompliance with these new requirements.
Section 2(a), inserting 5 U.S.C. 553A(f)
Annual OMB Review and Report on Major Rules Increasing Household Costs
Within one year of the bill's enactment and annually thereafter, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) must review and publish a report in the Federal Register. This report will identify any 'major rules' in effect that have substantially increased household costs, recommend amendments or repeal of such rules, and suggest legislative actions to address these cost increases.
Defines 'substantially increase' with respect to household costs as 'an increase of $50 or more a year.'
Section 2(a), inserting 5 U.S.C. 553A(g)(6)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for definitions, but its specific dollar amount is highly consequential and could be easily overlooked by a reader focusing on the main prohibitions.
Case for: Proponents would argue that a clear, quantifiable threshold provides certainty for agencies and the public, making the rule's impact measurable and preventing subjective interpretations.
Case against: Opponents might contend that a $50 annual increase is an extremely low threshold, making it difficult for agencies to pass almost any new regulation, regardless of its benefits, and could be seen as an arbitrary figure.
Estimated impact: This definition is central to the bill's operative effect, as it dictates which rules are subject to the prohibition. Its impact is potentially massive, affecting nearly all future federal regulations.
Defines 'household cost' broadly to include direct and indirect costs related to housing, utilities, transportation, food, healthcare, childcare, education, household products, taxes, fees, and 'any other essential goods or services that the Director of the Office of Management and Budget determines materially affects the cost of living for households.'
Section 2(a), inserting 5 U.S.C. 553A(g)(2)
Why it matters:The detailed enumeration is typical for definitions, but the discretionary power granted to OMB is a subtle yet powerful element.
Case for: Proponents would argue that a comprehensive definition ensures that agencies cannot circumvent the analysis requirements by narrowly interpreting 'household costs,' and the OMB clause allows for flexibility as economic conditions change.
Case against: Opponents might argue that the broadness, especially the OMB discretion, could lead to expansive interpretations that further restrict agency action, or that it could be subject to political manipulation.
Estimated impact: This definition determines the scope of costs agencies must analyze, potentially encompassing nearly every aspect of household spending and giving OMB significant influence over future interpretations.