New Transparency Bill Forces Agencies to Show Their Work: Critical Data Supporting Rules Must Go Public

The Information Quality Assurance Act of 2025 is essentially a massive upgrade to how the federal government justifies the rules and guidance it issues. It mandates that federal agencies stop using shaky data and start showing the public the receipts.

The New Standard: Best Available Evidence

The core of this bill, found in Section 2, is about raising the bar for the evidence agencies use. Within a year, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has to update its guidelines, requiring agencies to rely on the “best reasonably available information and evidence that is fit-for-purpose” when creating or explaining rules. Think about it: every time the EPA sets a new emissions standard, or the Department of Labor issues guidance on overtime, that decision is based on data—economic models, scientific studies, or surveys. This bill requires agencies to use the highest quality data they can reasonably get their hands on.

For you, this means potentially better, more rational rules. If you run a small manufacturing business, a new regulation should ideally be based on solid, current economic data, not an outdated study from 1998. The catch here, noted in the analysis, is that the phrase “best reasonably available” and “fit-for-purpose” is subjective. An agency could argue that obtaining truly rigorous data is too expensive, justifying the use of something less robust. This puts the burden on the public to challenge those definitions.

Showing the Receipts: Public Disclosure is Mandatory

This is where the bill gets interesting for transparency advocates. The OMB must direct agencies to publicly disclose the critical factual material they rely on to support new rules and guidance. This material must be made available in the official rulemaking docket, often as an “open Government data asset” (meaning it’s accessible and machine-readable).

If the Department of Transportation proposes a new truck safety rule based on accident statistics and fatigue studies, those specific statistics and studies must be posted for everyone to see. Crucially, if the agency uses a public comment process, they must give the public a chance to comment on the data itself before the rule is finalized. If the agency changes the data they rely on after the initial comment period, they have to make those revisions available in a timely manner. This is a game-changer for advocates and industry groups who often feel like they’re fighting rules based on hidden or proprietary information.

The Fine Print: Exceptions and Unfunded Mandates

While the goal is transparency, the bill includes necessary—but potentially problematic—exceptions. Agencies don't have to disclose information if it violates existing laws like privacy (think HIPAA or individual tax data) or intellectual property (like a company’s proprietary formula). If an agency withholds critical factual material, they must still include an explanation in the docket detailing why the information is being withheld and what steps they are taking to increase access.

Another major detail is the funding. Section 2 explicitly states that no additional funds are authorized to be appropriated for carrying out this Act. Agencies, which already struggle with IT infrastructure and staffing, are now required to update their guidelines, implement new public correction mechanisms, and convert all their critical factual material into open data assets. This could create a significant administrative headache for federal employees and potentially slow down the rulemaking process as agencies scramble to meet these new, unfunded mandates.