New Horse Racing Compact Repeals HISA, Centralizes Power, and Exempts Regulators from Public Scrutiny

The newly proposed Racehorse Health and Safety Act of 2025 is a complete overhaul of how horse racing is regulated in the US. The first thing it does is sweep the table clean by repealing the existing Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act of 2020 (HISA). In its place, this bill sets up a new regulatory body called the Racehorse Health and Safety Organization (RHSO), which will operate through an interstate compact—meaning states have to formally join the club to play. The RHSO’s main job is to create mandatory, national rules for medication control and racetrack safety, which will override any state laws that cover the same ground. This means if your state joins, its racing commission has to fall in line with the RHSO’s rules, whether they like them or not.

The New Regulatory Powerhouse: Who's Running the Show?

This bill creates a highly centralized system. The RHSO will be governed by a nine-member Board of Directors appointed by state racing commissions, with five spots reserved for the states that host the most racing days. This is where the money comes in: member states must pay mandatory fees to the RHSO to fund its operations, calculated based on the organization's annual budget and the expected number of races in that state. If you’re a taxpayer or an industry member in a state that joins, expect to see new fees or budget line items to cover this required contribution. States that choose not to join the compact face a major penalty: they are explicitly forbidden from allowing interstate off-track or advance deposit wagering on covered races (Sec. 4). Essentially, if you’re not in the compact, you’re cut off from the lucrative national betting market.

Scientific Rules, but Behind Closed Doors

The RHSO is tasked with creating science-based rules for medication and safety, relying on specialized, breed-specific committees (one each for Thoroughbreds, Standardbreds, and Quarter Horses). These committees are heavily populated by industry representatives, including those appointed by groups like the National Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association (Sec. 201, 302). While the goal is uniformity and safety—for example, the bill mandates a prohibition on selling a horse that received the bone drug bisphosphonate before its fourth birthday (Sec. 102)—there’s a major catch in how these rules are made. The RHSO and all its committees are explicitly exempted from the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (Sec. 103). FACA is designed to ensure that federal advisory groups are transparent, open to the public, and have balanced membership. By skipping FACA, the RHSO can hold meetings and make decisions with significantly less public scrutiny, which raises immediate concerns about transparency and accountability for media and the public.

Shifting the Burden of Proof on Trainers

When it comes to enforcement, the bill sets up a clear disciplinary process, but it stacks the deck against trainers. The rules must include a rebuttable presumption that trainers are responsible for any violations of the scientific medication control rules (Sec. 402). In plain English, if a horse tests positive, the rules assume the trainer is guilty until proven innocent. While the bill guarantees due process rights—including the right to counsel and a written record of proceedings—the initial burden of proof is heavily placed on the trainer. This is a significant impact for anyone working directly with the horses, as a positive test could lead to severe administrative sanctions, including permanent bans, disgorgement of purses, and massive fines (Sec. 403). The bill clearly states that these rules are designed to “strongly discourage” cheating, but the mechanism for doing so puts the financial and legal pressure squarely on the individual trainer.