New Accountability Act Demands Cost-Benefit Analysis and OIRA Approval for All Major $100M+ Federal Rules

This bill, officially titled the Unfunded Mandates Accountability and Transparency Act of 2025, is a major overhaul of how federal agencies create regulations. Essentially, it raises the bar significantly for any "major rule"—defined as a regulation likely to have an annual economic effect of $100 million or more, or cause a major increase in costs or prices (SEC. 2).

If an agency wants to issue one of these big-impact rules, they must now jump through several new hoops, primarily designed to force them to prove the rule is worth the cost. This means mandatory, detailed Regulatory Impact Analyses (RIAs) that must be published for public comment before the rule is even proposed, and a requirement to select the regulatory option that provides the "greatest net benefits" (SEC. 2, SEC. 4).

The New Rulebook for Regulators

Think of this as a new set of speed bumps for federal agencies like the EPA or OSHA. Agencies can no longer just say a rule is necessary; they must quantify the costs and benefits and compare them against several alternatives. For example, if the EPA is proposing a new air quality standard that costs the manufacturing industry $150 million annually, they must show the health benefits are worth more than that cost, and explain why they didn’t choose a cheaper, less restrictive option (SEC. 2).

Crucially, the bill introduces a "maximize net benefits" requirement. An agency must choose the alternative that provides the most bang for the buck. The only way around this is to get the express approval of the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). OIRA, which is part of the White House, gains significant new power here. If an agency wants to choose an option that doesn't maximize net benefits—perhaps because it addresses a hard-to-quantify issue like civil rights—OIRA must sign off on it, and the agency has to publicly explain why the extra benefits justify the extra costs (SEC. 4).

More Cooks in the Kitchen

For those who feel federal rules often drop out of the sky without warning, this bill mandates much earlier and broader consultation. Agencies must start talking to State, local, and Tribal officials, as well as private sector parties, as early as possible—long before a proposed rule is officially published. They also have to create an electronic docket and publish a notice in the Federal Register at least 90 days before the formal proposal, inviting the public to propose alternatives (SEC. 3, SEC. 6).

This is good news for state governments, local municipalities, and industry groups, who get a much earlier seat at the table. If you run a small business or work in a regulated industry, this means more opportunities to influence a rule's design before it becomes set in stone. The downside is that this added consultation and analysis will significantly increase the time it takes for agencies to issue any major rule, potentially slowing down necessary updates to safety, environmental, or consumer protection standards.

The Litigation Risk

Perhaps the biggest game-changer is the expansion of judicial review (SEC. 8). Currently, it’s very hard to sue an agency just because you disagree with their cost-benefit analysis. This bill changes that. If a major rule harms you, you can now sue the agency specifically over whether they complied with the new requirements for conducting the Regulatory Impact Analysis and whether they followed the "maximize net benefits" rule. This opens up a new and powerful avenue for regulated industries to challenge regulations in court, not on the substance of the rule, but on the adequacy of the paperwork behind it. This could lead to significant delays and uncertainty for major federal policies.