RED TAPE Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Ernst, Joni [R-IA]
- Committees
- Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (primary), Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee
- Last action
- Nov 19, 2025
Bottom line
This bill fundamentally alters how federal agencies evaluate the costs and benefits of regulations by restricting consideration solely to quantifiable monetary impacts, potentially streamlining regulatory processes but overlooking non-monetary societal effects.
What it actually does
This bill prohibits federal agencies and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) from considering non-monetized or unquantified factors when conducting regulatory impact analyses or benefit-cost analyses for proposed, final, or interim final rules. It mandates public transparency for these analyses and establishes a judicial review process allowing courts to invalidate rules that violate this prohibition, including rules issued retroactively to November 9, 2023.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill will ensure regulatory actions yield clear, measurable financial benefits, reduce unnecessary regulatory costs and burdens on the public and private sectors, and increase transparency by focusing on tangible economic impacts. They believe it will lead to more efficient and accountable government regulation by eliminating subjective considerations.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that by prohibiting the consideration of non-monetized factors, the bill risks overlooking crucial societal benefits such as environmental protection, public health improvements, safety enhancements, and equity considerations. They argue this could lead to regulations that prioritize short-term financial gains over long-term public welfare and undermine the comprehensive assessment of regulatory impacts.
The bill is short and relatively easy to read, allowing ample time for informed evaluation.
Section 1
Short Title: RED TAPE Act
This section establishes the official short title of the bill as the "Regulations Evaluated to Determine The Anticipated Price and Effect Act," or the "RED TAPE Act." This title is used for easy reference and identification of the legislation in public discourse and legislative tracking.
Supporters argue
Supporters would argue that a clear and memorable short title helps in public discourse and legislative tracking, making the bill's purpose more accessible and understandable to a wider audience.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against the naming of a bill itself, unless the name is perceived as misleading or politically charged, which is not explicitly stated in the bill text.
Tradeoffs
None inherent in the naming of the bill itself, though the acronym 'RED TAPE' clearly signals its intent to reduce regulatory burdens.
Section 2
Congressional Findings on Regulatory Prioritization
This section states Congress's finding that federal agencies must prioritize "tangible, immediately quantifiable monetary benefits" in their decision-making processes for regulatory actions. It emphasizes ensuring regulations yield clear financial benefits while minimizing unnecessary costs and burdens on both public and private sectors. This establishes the guiding philosophy for the bill's subsequent prohibitions.
Section 3(a)(1)
New Definitions for Regulatory Analysis Terms
This section amends Chapter 6 of title 5, United States Code, by adding new definitions. It defines "benefit-cost analysis" according to OMB Circular A-94 (November 9, 2023 revision) and "regulatory impact analysis" by referencing several Executive Orders (12866, 13563, 14094) and OMB Circulars (A-4, A-94), all as revised on November 9, 2023, or any successor revisions. These precise definitions are critical for the scope of the bill's prohibitions.
Section 3(a)(2), adding new 5 U.S.C. 613(a)
Agency Prohibition on Non-Monetized Factors in Regulatory Analysis
This core provision explicitly prohibits any federal agency from considering "non-monetized or unquantified factor" when conducting a regulatory impact analysis or benefit-cost analysis for any proposed rule, final rule, or interim final rule. This means agencies can only use factors that can be assigned a specific monetary value or quantified numerically, thereby excluding qualitative benefits or those difficult to monetize.
Section 3(a)(2), adding new 5 U.S.C. 613(b)
OMB Prohibition on Authorizing or Considering Non-Monetized Factors
This section prohibits the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) from authorizing, permitting, or endorsing the analysis or use of non-monetized or unquantified factors in regulatory analyses. It also prevents OMB from considering such factors when reviewing analyses submitted by other agencies. This ensures that the prohibition extends to the central oversight body for federal regulation, reinforcing the bill's core intent.
Section 3(a)(2), adding new 5 U.S.C. 613(c)
Mandatory Public Transparency for Regulatory Analyses
This provision requires each agency to publish in the Federal Register, alongside each proposed, final, or interim final rule, a summary and the full text of its regulatory impact analysis and benefit-cost analysis. This publication must include the methodology, specific analyses used for estimating economic impacts, the determination and rationale of these analyses, and any other relevant decision-making processes. This aims to increase public scrutiny of agency economic justifications for rules.
Section 3(a)(2), adding new 5 U.S.C. 613(e)
Judicial Review and Invalidation of Non-Compliant Rules
This provision establishes a mechanism for judicial review, allowing any party affected by a rule to bring a civil action against an agency if it considered non-monetized or unquantified factors in violation of the bill. If a court finds such a violation, it "shall declare the rule invalid." The provision also sets a statute of limitations, applying to any rule issued on or after November 9, 2023, making the review retroactive.
The judicial review provision, which allows for the invalidation of rules, applies to any rule issued by an agency on or after November 9, 2023. This means rules promulgated before the bill's enactment date could be challenged under its new standards.
Section 3(a)(2), adding new 5 U.S.C. 613(e)(3)
Why it matters:While common to specify effective dates, applying a new judicial review standard retroactively to rules issued before the bill's enactment is a significant policy choice that could be easily missed by a casual reader focusing on future impacts. It has substantial implications for regulatory stability.
Case for: Proponents might argue that this retroactive application ensures immediate accountability for agencies that may have already been considering non-monetized factors, signaling a clear shift in policy direction from a specific date and preventing agencies from circumventing the new rules.
Case against: Opponents would contend that retroactive application creates significant legal uncertainty and could lead to the invalidation of rules that were legally sound when promulgated, disrupting existing regulatory frameworks and creating instability for regulated entities and the public.
Estimated impact: Potentially impacts all federal rules issued between November 9, 2023, and the bill's enactment date, making them vulnerable to legal challenge under the new standard. This could affect a wide range of regulations across various agencies.