Racehorse Health and Safety Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Sen. Cotton, Tom [R-AR]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 14, 2025
Bottom line
The bill shifts federal oversight of horseracing medication and safety back to a state-led interstate compact model, aiming for uniform, breed-specific rules while repealing the current federal framework.
What it actually does
This bill repeals the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act of 2020 and authorizes states to form an interstate compact to regulate horseracing. It establishes a Racehorse Health and Safety Organization (RHSO) governed by a board of state racing commission appointees. The RHSO would develop and enforce uniform, breed-specific scientific medication control and racetrack safety rules, funded by member states through breed-specific assessments.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill restores state authority and flexibility, allowing for breed-specific rules that better account for the unique characteristics and needs of Thoroughbreds, Standardbreds, and Quarter Horses. They contend it addresses concerns about the federal overreach and one-size-fits-all approach of the repealed HISA, promoting better horse welfare and industry integrity through a cooperative state framework.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that repealing the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act of 2020 (HISA) undermines crucial federal efforts to establish national, uniform standards for medication and safety, potentially leading to a fragmented regulatory landscape. They may contend that a state-led compact could struggle with consistent enforcement and funding across jurisdictions, jeopardizing horse welfare and the integrity of the sport.
The bill is moderately detailed, requiring a dedicated read to understand the new organizational structure and rule-making processes.
Sec. 3
Repeal of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act of 2020
This section explicitly repeals the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act of 2020 (HISA), which established a federal authority to regulate medication and safety in horseracing. This action effectively eliminates the existing federal framework for the sport, returning regulatory authority to states or a new compact.
Supporters argue
Supporters of this bill argue that HISA represented federal overreach and that its repeal allows for a more appropriate, state-led regulatory approach that can better address breed-specific needs without a 'one-size-fits-all' mandate.
Critics contend
Opponents of this repeal would argue that HISA provided much-needed national uniformity and stronger enforcement mechanisms to protect horse welfare and the integrity of racing, which would be lost with its repeal, potentially leading to a fragmented regulatory landscape.
Tradeoffs
This provision navigates the tension between federal uniformity and state autonomy, aiming to provide regulatory flexibility tailored to specific equine breeds versus a single national standard.
Sec. 4
Authorization to Enter into Interstate Compact
This section grants Congressional consent for states to enter into an interstate compact to regulate horseracing. It also includes a critical provision that prohibits interstate off-track wagers or advance deposit wagers from host states that are not members of this compact, thereby creating a significant financial incentive for states to join.
Title I, Sec. 101
Racehorse Health and Safety Organization (RHSO) Establishment and Governance
This section establishes the Racehorse Health and Safety Organization (RHSO) as the central coordinating body for the interstate compact. It outlines the composition of its 9-member Board of Directors, with members appointed by state racing commissions. The Board's duties include adopting rules for medication control and safety, maintaining a database, investigating violations, and overseeing testing laboratories, all while ensuring rules are science-based.
Title I, Sec. 101(d)
RHSO Funding Mechanism
The RHSO will be funded by initial and permanent fees assessed to member state racing commissions. These fees are calculated annually based on breed-specific budgets and the projected number of racing starts, with states determining their own collection methods. A crucial element is that funds assessed for one breed cannot be commingled or used to subsidize any other breed. Rate increases exceeding 5% require a three-fourths majority Board vote.
Title II, Sec. 201 & 202
Horseracing Scientific Medication Control Committees and Rules
This title mandates the establishment of separate Scientific Medication Control Committees for Standardbred, Quarter Horse, and Thoroughbred racing. These committees, composed of regulatory and industry experts, are tasked with drafting breed-specific rules for medication control, including lists of permitted/prohibited substances, withdrawal guidelines, and in- and out-of-competition testing protocols. The goal is to ensure horses compete free from performance-enhancing substances and that unsound horses do not race.
Title III, Sec. 302 & 303
Racetrack Safety Committee and Rules
This title establishes a Racetrack Safety Committee to develop mandatory, breed-specific racetrack safety rules. These rules cover comprehensive aspects such as training and racing safety standards, track surface quality and maintenance, injury and fatality analysis, and a process for racetrack accreditation. The committee is mandated to consult with state racing commissions and consider existing safety standards in its rule development.
Title IV, Sec. 401-403
Rule Violations, Results Management, and Administrative Sanctions
This title defines a comprehensive list of prohibited acts, including the administration or presence of certain medications, refusal to cooperate with investigations, tampering, and complicity in violations. It mandates the RHSO Board to issue rules for a disciplinary process, encompassing investigations, adjudication, and a schedule of administrative sanctions (e.g., lifetime bans, fines, purse disgorgement). The rules must also provide adequate due process protections for covered persons.
Requires member states, as a condition of compact membership, to enact statutes treating the undisclosed sale of a covered horse (or any horse in anticipation of future covered races) as an unfair or deceptive act if the seller knows the horse received bisphosphonate prior to its fourth birthday or any other substance determined by the RHSO to have long-term degrading effects on soundness.
Sec. 102(c)
Why it matters:Its placement might be due to its nature as a condition imposed on member states for compact participation, rather than a direct RHSO rule. This can be seen as standard legislative practice for structuring federal-state cooperative agreements.
Case for: Proponents would argue this provision protects buyers and promotes horse welfare by ensuring transparency about treatments that could compromise a horse's long-term soundness, particularly the controversial use of bisphosphonates in young horses.
Case against: Some might argue this places an undue burden on sellers to track and disclose past treatments, potentially affecting horse valuations, or that the RHSO's power to designate 'other substances' could be overly broad and subject to change.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant for horse sales markets, increasing transparency and potentially affecting the value and marketability of horses with certain treatment histories.
Prohibits a host state that is not a member of the interstate compact from allowing the interstate transmission of any electronic signal for the purposes of allowing for the placement of interstate off-track wagers or advance deposit wagers pertaining to the covered horserace concerned. Member states, however, are permitted to allow such wagers.
Sec. 4(c)
Why it matters:This is a critical enforcement mechanism for the compact, designed to ensure broad state participation by creating a significant financial incentive to join. Its placement within the compact authorization is logical, but its profound impact on state revenue streams might not be immediately apparent without careful reading.
Case for: Proponents would argue this is a necessary and effective mechanism to encourage broad state participation in the compact, ensuring a wide reach for uniform rules and preventing 'free-riding' by non-member states who might otherwise benefit from interstate wagering without contributing to the regulatory framework.
Case against: Critics might argue this provision is coercive, forcing states into the compact by threatening their ability to participate in lucrative interstate wagering, potentially infringing on state autonomy and creating an unfair competitive disadvantage for non-member states.
Estimated impact: Potentially billions of dollars in wagering revenue for states, making compact membership a significant financial decision for any state with a horseracing industry.