The REVIEW Act of 2025 shortens the federal financial regulation review cycle to every seven years and mandates comprehensive internal reviews assessing the economic impact and consumer effects of existing rules.
William Timmons
Representative
SC-4
The Regulatory Efficiency, Verification, Itemization, and Enhanced Workflow (REVIEW) Act of 2025 shortens the required review cycle for federal financial regulations from ten to seven years. It mandates that regulatory agencies conduct comprehensive internal reviews assessing the cumulative impact of their rules on consumers, market access, and credit availability. The resulting reports must include recommendations for streamlining or eliminating burdensome regulations identified through both public input and internal analysis.
REVIEW Act of 2025 Shortens Financial Rule Reviews to 7 Years and Mandates Cost-Benefit Audits.
The REVIEW Act of 2025 revamps how the government audits the rules governing your bank, credit card issuer, and mortgage lender. Currently, federal financial agencies are required to review their regulations every 10 years to see if they’re still necessary; this bill speeds that up to every 7 years. It also forces these agencies to do a deep dive into the 'cumulative impact' of their rules, specifically looking at whether the mountain of paperwork is making it harder for you to get a loan or for a local business to stay liquid. Think of it as a mandatory spring cleaning for the financial rulebook, happening more often and with a much sharper focus on the price tag of regulation.
Trimming the Red Tape
By moving the review cycle from a decade to every seven years (Section 2), the bill aims to keep pace with a digital economy that moves way faster than 1990s-era laws. For a small business owner trying to secure a line of credit, this could be good news. If an agency finds that three different rules are asking for the same data, the bill requires them to recommend ways to 'streamline, simplify, or eliminate' that duplication. The goal is to ensure that regulations aren't just layers of old sediment that make banking more expensive for the end user. However, for the average person, the challenge is that 'streamlining' can sometimes be code for removing protections that keep your deposits safe.
The Cost of Doing Business
A major pillar of this bill is the new requirement for agencies to quantify the 'direct and indirect economic costs' of their rules (Section 2(b)(2)). This means regulators can't just say a rule is 'good for the system'; they have to try to put a dollar amount on how it affects market liquidity and consumer access. For example, if a new regulation makes it so expensive for a bank to offer a specific type of low-interest checking account that they simply stop offering it, that 'indirect cost' to the consumer now has to be measured and reported. It’s an attempt to bring more transparency to why certain financial products disappear or get more expensive.
Balancing Safety and Access
While the bill pushes for efficiency, it creates a delicate balancing act. Agencies are tasked with weighing the 'safety and soundness' of the financial system against 'overall U.S. economic activity.' There is a potential risk here: if an agency focuses too heavily on the immediate cost to a bank, they might overlook the long-term benefit of a rule that prevents a financial meltdown. For a family saving for a home, a 'burdensome' regulation might actually be the very thing ensuring their bank doesn't take reckless risks with their mortgage. The bill’s emphasis on reducing burdens means the public will need to keep a close eye on the 'recommendations' section of these new reports to ensure that consumer protections aren't being tossed out with the junk mail.