The "Agency Accountability and Cost Transparency Act of 2025" mandates that federal agencies offset the costs of new major regulations by repealing existing ones of equivalent cost, ensuring budget neutrality.
Beth Van Duyne
Representative
TX-24
The "Agency Accountability and Cost Transparency Act of 2025" mandates that federal agencies estimate the costs of new major regulations, identify and repeal existing rules to offset these costs, and declare whether the new rule is budget neutral in the Federal Register. This ensures that new regulations do not increase the overall financial burden on the public and promotes fiscal responsibility within government agencies. The Act defines a major rule as one with a significant economic impact, and the cost includes the expense of understanding and implementing the rule.
New Rulebook for Federal Agencies: 'Agency Accountability and Cost Transparency Act of 2025' Requires Offset of New Rule Costs
The "Agency Accountability and Cost Transparency Act of 2025" aims to put a leash on the financial impact of new federal regulations. The core idea? Any new "major rule" an agency wants to implement must be offset by getting rid of existing rules to keep things "budget neutral."
Making Agencies Think Twice
This act forces agencies to really think through the costs of their actions. Before any "major rule" – defined as one with an annual economic impact of $100 million or more, or that significantly hikes costs or messes with competition – can go into effect, the agency has to figure out its total cost. This includes the cost to you, the public, of understanding and implementing the rule (SEC. 2). Then, they have to find existing rules to scrap that would save an equal amount of money. It is like cleaning out your closet before you can buy a new wardrobe.
Real-World Rollout
Imagine a small business owner who currently has to comply with several environmental regulations. If a new regulation comes along that would require expensive upgrades, this act could mean an older, equally costly regulation gets tossed out. That's the theory, at least. Or, if an agency wants to implement a new rule that would require consumers to switch to a more expensive process, that could be blocked if the agency can't find an existing rule to cut to offset the cost. (SEC 2).
The Fine Print (and Potential Problems)
Of course, there are exceptions. Rules dealing with specific cases (like individual rate settings) or internal agency stuff are exempt (SEC. 2). But here's where it gets tricky: What if a rule that provides important, but hard-to-quantify benefits, gets cut to make way for something new? Or, what if an agency lowballs the cost of a new rule to make the numbers work? This act might make agencies think twice about enacting any new rules, even ones that are genuinely needed. It also raises the question of how you accurately measure the "cost" of things like clean air or consumer safety, and whether those costs should be balanced against the cost of compliance for businesses.
The Act defines "rule" pretty broadly, including "interpretative rules, policy statements, and agency guidance" (SEC. 2). This means the act could affect a wide range of agency actions, not just formal regulations. It is basically forcing agencies to justify the cost of their actions, and to prove that they are not just adding more red tape without removing any existing burdens.