HR-50-115
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 738.
Sponsored by Virginia Foxx (R-NC)
What it does
This bill would expand the 1995 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), which requires the government to assess the costs it imposes on states, localities, tribes, and businesses when it creates new rules. It would require federal agencies to more broadly calculate those costs — including lost business profits and costs passed to consumers — and extend those requirements to independent regulatory agencies currently exempt from them. It would also allow courts to review whether agencies followed UMRA's cost-assessment and least-burdensome-alternative requirements, and give Congress new tools to block legislation that imposes high costs on the private sector.
Who benefits
State, local, and tribal governments that receive federal assistance and face new conditions attached to that funding; private businesses subject to federal regulations, particularly those in heavily regulated industries; congressional committee chairs and ranking members who gain new tools to request cost analyses; and property owners who would receive more explicit analysis of regulatory impacts on private property. Smaller agencies and businesses that currently lack resources to absorb unanalyzed compliance costs would also benefit from greater transparency.
Who is hurt
Federal agencies, particularly independent regulatory agencies (such as the SEC, FTC, FCC, and CFTC), which would face new procedural requirements, expanded reporting obligations, and greater judicial scrutiny. Consumer and public-interest groups that rely on those agencies to act quickly on regulations could see rulemaking slowed or blocked. Workers and communities that benefit from regulations addressing health, safety, or environmental standards could see those protections delayed or weakened if agencies face higher procedural hurdles. The Office of Management and Budget would lose authority transferred to OIRA.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the federal government routinely imposes costly mandates on states, localities, and businesses without fully accounting for the real-world economic burden — including lost profits, costs passed to consumers, and behavioral changes. The original 1995 UMRA left major loopholes, particularly by exempting powerful independent agencies from its requirements. This bill would close those gaps, ensuring that all significant federal rules come with honest, comprehensive cost accounting before they take effect. Supporters contend that requiring agencies to consider the least costly alternative and allowing courts to enforce those requirements does not stop regulation — it simply demands that regulators do their homework. Greater transparency, they argue, leads to smarter, more targeted rules that achieve policy goals without unnecessary economic harm to businesses, property owners, and the communities that depend on them.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill would add layers of procedural requirements that slow or paralyze the rulemaking process, making it harder for agencies to respond quickly to urgent public health, safety, financial, and environmental risks. They contend that expanding judicial review to cover cost-assessment methodology gives courts and regulated industries new tools to challenge and delay rules in litigation, even when the underlying policy goals are sound. Critics also argue that calculating "forgone business profits" and "behavioral changes" as regulatory costs introduces speculative, industry-friendly metrics that systematically inflate the apparent burden of regulation. Opponents further warn that extending UMRA requirements to independent agencies — which were deliberately insulated from political pressure — undermines their ability to act in the public interest, and that the bill's private-sector consultation mandate gives well-resourced industries disproportionate influence over the rules meant to govern them.
Constitutional context
The bill operates within Congress's authority to structure the administrative state under the Necessary and Proper Clause and its oversight of agencies created under the Commerce Clause. The expanded judicial review provisions are directly relevant to the post-Chevron landscape established by Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024), under which courts now independently interpret agency statutory authority rather than deferring to agency readings. The major questions doctrine from West Virginia v. EPA (2022) is also relevant, as the bill's requirement that agencies demonstrate clear authorization for significant mandates aligns with that doctrine. The explicit inclusion of private property impact analysis echoes the expanded Takings Clause framework from Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid (2021). The Tenth Amendment's anti-commandeering principles are implicated by provisions governing conditions attached to federal assistance to state and local governments.
Checks and balances
The bill shifts authority in several directions. It transfers rulemaking oversight from the Office of Management and Budget (executive) to OIRA (also executive, but more specialized), centralizing regulatory review within the executive branch. It expands congressional power by giving committee chairs and ranking members new rights to demand cost analyses from both CBO and agencies. Most significantly, it expands judicial branch authority by broadening the scope of court review over agency compliance with UMRA — allowing courts to compel agencies to follow cost-assessment and least-burdensome-alternative requirements. Independent regulatory agencies, which currently operate with significant insulation from both presidential and congressional oversight, would see their autonomy reduced.
Historical precedent
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) is the direct predecessor this bill amends. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (1980) and the Paperwork Reduction Act (1980) established earlier frameworks requiring agencies to assess regulatory burdens on small businesses and the public, respectively. The Congressional Review Act (1996) similarly gave Congress tools to review and block agency rules.