New Mandate Transparency Bill Requires Feds to Show the Real Cost of Rules: OIRA Gets More Power, Public Gets More Say

The Unfunded Mandates Accountability and Transparency Act of 2025 is all about making federal agencies really think through the costs and benefits of big new rules before they hit us. It's not just about dollars and cents, although those are important – it's about looking at the whole picture, from job losses to price hikes, and making sure the government isn't just passing the buck to states, cities, or businesses.

Real-World Costs & Who Pays

This bill changes how agencies look at "major rules" – those with an annual economic impact of $100 million or more (adjusted for inflation every 5 years, per SEC. 2). It forces them to spell out not just the obvious costs, but also the indirect ones, like lost revenue for businesses (SEC. 2). Think of a factory having to shut down a production line because of new environmental regulations. It's not just the cost of the new equipment; it's the lost income from not being able to make and sell their product. The bill wants all that laid out, in plain English, in a "regulatory impact analysis" published in the Federal Register (SEC. 2).

It also demands a hard look at who bears the brunt of these costs. Does a new rule hit one region harder than others? Does it disproportionately affect small businesses or specific communities (SEC. 2)? For example, a regulation on agricultural runoff might impact farmers in Iowa differently than tech startups in Silicon Valley. The bill wants those differences spelled out.

The OIRA's New Clout

The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) gets a lot more power under this bill (SEC. 5). They become the ultimate gatekeepers, making sure agencies follow the rules and don't clash with each other. If OIRA thinks an agency is cutting corners on its cost-benefit analysis or ignoring the law, they can tell them to go back and fix it before the rule is finalized (SEC. 5). They also have to report to Congress annually on how well agencies are complying (SEC. 5). This could mean more consistent rules, but also raises the question of whether it gives OIRA too much influence.

More Voices, More Scrutiny

The bill also aims to get more people involved before rules are set in stone. Agencies have to consult with a wider range of folks – state and local officials, tribal governments, and businesses of all sizes (SEC. 3). They're supposed to talk about costs, benefits, and risks early in the process, and even consider alternative ways to achieve the same goal (SEC. 3). This means, for instance, that a small business owner might have a chance to explain how a proposed regulation would affect their operations before it becomes law. There's also a new requirement to publish a notice of initiation in the Federal Register at least 90 days before proposing a major rule, inviting public suggestions (SEC. 6).

However, the bill has some interesting exceptions. Rules about monetary policy from the Federal Reserve are exempt (SEC. 7), which means decisions affecting interest rates and the money supply won't face the same level of scrutiny. And while the bill pushes for maximizing "net benefits," it also allows agencies to choose alternatives if they can justify it based on things that are hard to put a price on, like civil rights (SEC. 4) – but OIRA has to sign off on that.

Finally, if someone feels an agency didn't follow the rules in sections 202(b), 202(c)(1), or 205, they can take them to court (SEC. 8). Sections 3, 4, 5, and 7 of the Act take effect 120 days after it's enacted (SEC. 10). This means there could be a bit of a scramble as agencies adjust to these new requirements.