The EXPERTS Act Overhauls Agency Rulemaking: Strict New Disclosure Rules and a 6-Year Limit on Lawsuits

The Experts Protect Effective Rules, Transparency, and Stability Act of 2025—or the EXPERTS Act—is a huge piece of legislation that changes how federal agencies write and enforce regulations. Think of it as a major rewrite of the rulebook for the people who write the rules we all live by. This bill focuses on three main areas: increasing transparency around the data used in rulemaking, reinforcing the power of federal agencies in court, and creating a new office focused on social equity.

Who Paid for That Study? New Transparency Rules

Sections 4 and 5 bring in some serious transparency requirements for anyone submitting scientific or economic studies to an agency during the public comment period. If you’re a company, a trade group, or even a think tank, and you submit research that you funded, you now have to disclose exactly how much money was involved, who provided the funds, and if any regulated entity reviewed or revised the findings. The goal is to make sure we all know if the data driving a new regulation was paid for by the folks who will benefit from, or be affected by, that regulation.

Here’s the real-world impact: If a large chemical manufacturer submits a study claiming a proposed environmental rule is too costly, they must now publicly disclose that they paid $500,000 for that study and that their in-house legal team reviewed the conclusions. If they don’t, the agency can simply exclude or disregard that submission entirely. For public companies, Section 10 raises the stakes even higher, imposing a minimum $250,000 fine for a first offense if they submit materially false or misleading information. This puts serious pressure on large corporations to be honest and upfront about their submissions.

The Agency Gets the Benefit of the Doubt

Section 12 deals with judicial review, which is a fancy way of saying how often and how easily courts can overturn federal agency rules. This section strongly reinforces the idea that if a law isn’t perfectly clear, the court must defer to the agency’s “reasonable or permissible interpretation.” This is a big deal because it makes it harder for businesses or individuals to challenge a regulation in court. Essentially, if an agency can show its interpretation is reasonable, judges are told to back off. For everyday people, this means that once a rule is finalized, it’s much more likely to stick, even if it’s controversial.

Adding to that finality is Section 13, which sets a six-year statute of limitations for challenging a final agency action. Right now, that timeline can sometimes be fuzzy, but this bill locks it down: you have six years from the date a final rule is published to sue over it. After that, you’re out of luck. This provides certainty for agencies, but it removes the ability to challenge older rules that might have unexpected long-term consequences.

Negotiating Rules and the Public Advocate

Section 8 makes significant changes to “negotiated rulemaking,” where agencies bring together stakeholders to hash out a rule before it’s proposed. The EXPERTS Act narrows who is included, primarily focusing on representatives from Federal, State, local, and tribal governments. It removes the language encouraging agencies to use this process and strips out specific references to groups like “residents of rural areas.” This shift means that the process of writing rules becomes more of a government-to-government discussion, potentially sidelining input from non-governmental stakeholders and the general public.

On the flip side, Section 11 establishes the Office of the Public Advocate within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This new office is tasked with improving public involvement in rulemaking, conducting research on social equity impacts, and ensuring that information about new rules is written in clear, accessible language and available in multiple languages. For busy parents or workers who don’t have time to wade through the Federal Register, this office is supposed to be the go-to resource, making sure that rule changes—like those affecting childcare subsidies or job safety—are clearly communicated and fairly assessed for their impact on different communities.