HR-1163-119
Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by the Yeas and Nays: 14 - 12.
Sponsored by Brad Finstad (R-MN)
What it does
The Prove It Act of 2025 would require federal agencies to demonstrate — before a regulation takes effect — that the projected benefits of the rule outweigh its projected costs. Based on the bill's short title and category, it would likely establish a mandatory cost-benefit justification standard that agencies must meet and document prior to finalizing economically significant regulations. The specific procedural requirements, thresholds, and enforcement mechanisms are not detailed in the available bill text.
Who benefits
Businesses and industries subject to federal regulation, who would gain a procedural check against rules they view as costly or unjustified. Small businesses with fewer resources to absorb compliance costs. Regulated industries such as energy, manufacturing, agriculture, and finance. Taxpayers if fewer or narrower regulations reduce compliance overhead. Legal and consulting firms specializing in regulatory challenges, who would see increased demand for cost-benefit analysis work.
Who is hurt
Advocacy groups and communities that rely on federal regulations for environmental, consumer, worker, or public health protections — if agencies are unable to meet the evidentiary standard, rules they support may be delayed or blocked. Federal agencies, which would face increased administrative burdens and potential litigation over their analyses. Beneficiaries of regulations whose benefits are difficult to quantify in dollar terms (e.g., ecosystem preservation, civil rights protections). Nonprofit organizations that depend on regulatory enforcement rather than litigation to advance their goals.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that federal agencies have long issued rules whose costs to businesses and consumers exceed their measurable benefits, and that a statutory "prove it" standard would impose necessary discipline on the rulemaking process. They contend that requiring agencies to document a positive cost-benefit ratio before rules take effect is consistent with longstanding executive orders (dating to Reagan-era E.O. 12291) and would give that requirement the force of law, making it judicially enforceable rather than merely advisory. They argue this protects American businesses — particularly small firms — from regulatory burdens that reduce competitiveness without delivering commensurate public benefit.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that many of the most important federal protections — clean air standards, workplace safety rules, civil rights enforcement — produce benefits that are real but difficult to monetize, and that a rigid cost-benefit requirement would systematically disadvantage rules protecting diffuse or vulnerable populations. They contend that post-Loper Bright, courts will independently scrutinize agency cost-benefit analyses, meaning this bill could trigger a wave of litigation that paralyzes rulemaking across the federal government. They further argue that Congress, not agencies, would effectively cede final say over regulatory policy to federal judges evaluating competing economic models.
Constitutional context
This bill directly engages the post-Loper Bright (2024) landscape, in which courts no longer defer to agency statutory interpretations and instead exercise independent judgment. By codifying a cost-benefit standard, Congress would be attempting to provide the "clear authorization" that West Virginia v. EPA (2022) requires for major agency actions — but the adequacy of that authorization, and how courts apply it to specific rules, would itself become a new source of litigation under the Necessary and Proper Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 18) and the Nondelegation doctrine (Art. I, §1).
Checks and balances
Federal agencies would be required to satisfy a statutory cost-benefit standard before rules take effect, shifting meaningful gatekeeping power to the judiciary, which would review agency analyses under the independent-judgment standard established in Loper Bright (2024); Congress retains authority to set the standard and could amend it.
Historical precedent
Executive Order 12291 (1981) and E.O. 12866 (1993) imposed cost-benefit requirements on significant federal regulations by presidential directive, but no statute has previously codified a universal, judicially enforceable cost-benefit standard as a precondition for all agency rulemaking.