EXPERTS Act Sets $1M Fine for Companies Submitting False Data, Overhauls Agency Rulemaking

The Experts Protect Effective Rules, Transparency, and Stability Act of 2025 (EXPERTS Act) is a serious overhaul of how federal agencies make rules—the regulations that affect everything from your car’s safety to your kids’ school lunch. This bill is all about pulling back the curtain on who influences those rules and how fast the government has to move.

Show Me the Receipts: New Rules for Studies

Ever wonder who paid for that scientific study an industry group submitted to argue against a new environmental rule? The EXPERTS Act wants to make that crystal clear. The bill requires anyone submitting a scientific, economic, or technical study during the public comment period to disclose exactly who funded the study and how much money they got (Sec. 4). If the study is not publicly peer-reviewed, the disclosure requirements are even stricter.

If a regulated entity—say, a big oil company—funded at least 10% of the study, the agency must publicly disclose this conflict of interest on its website and in the Federal Register (Sec. 5). The real teeth here is that if you fail to make these required disclosures, the agency can simply exclude your submission from consideration. For regular folks, this is a win for transparency, helping us understand if the data driving policy is truly independent or if it’s coming from a source with skin in the game.

The $1 Million Penalty for Lying

One of the most immediate and impactful changes is aimed squarely at public companies. If a company required to file annual reports (like those traded on the stock market) knowingly submits false, fictitious, or fraudulent information to an agency during rulemaking, they face massive civil penalties (Sec. 10). The fine starts at $250,000 for the first offense and jumps to at least $1,000,000 for subsequent violations. This is a clear message: if you’re trying to sway federal policy, you better be telling the truth. Agencies can also exclude these false submissions entirely, meaning the company wasted its time and money—and now faces a huge fine.

The Speed Limit on Regulatory Review

Currently, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) reviews significant rules before they are finalized, but there are no hard deadlines, which can lead to major delays. The EXPERTS Act puts OIRA on a clock, requiring them to complete their review of a significant regulation within 60 days (Sec. 9). They can only extend this once, for an additional 30 days, and they have to publicly justify why. For the average person, this should mean that critical regulations—like new safety standards or consumer protections—won’t get stuck in bureaucratic limbo indefinitely.

Another transparency measure requires agencies to publicly document any changes made to a rule after it was reviewed by OIRA or other federal officials, both before the proposed rule is published and before the final rule is published (Sec. 6). This helps the public see if the rule that was proposed is the one that was finalized, and who might have influenced the final text.

The New Public Advocate and Social Equity

The bill establishes a brand new Office of the Public Advocate within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), led by a Senate-confirmed National Public Advocate (Sec. 11). This office is tasked with helping agencies solicit public participation, assisting individuals in the rulemaking process, and conducting research on the social equity impacts of proposed rules. The goal is to ensure that historically underrepresented groups are better included and that regulations don't disproportionately harm protected classes.

This is a potential game-changer for advocacy groups and everyday citizens who often feel shut out of the complex regulatory machine. The Advocate must also ensure that information about rule changes is written in clear, accessible language and available in multiple languages. This means less dense jargon and more plain English explanations, which is a massive win for busy people trying to keep up.

Limiting Your Seat at the Negotiating Table

While the bill boosts transparency, it significantly restricts who gets to participate in “negotiated rulemaking.” This is a process where agencies meet with affected parties—like environmental groups, industry, and unions—to hash out a consensus on a rule before it’s proposed. The EXPERTS Act amends the law to limit this process only to negotiations between Federal, State, local, or Tribal governments (Sec. 8). This effectively cuts out non-governmental organizations, public interest groups, and industry associations from using this specific, often effective, method of shaping policy. For many public interest groups, this removes a crucial tool for direct influence, shifting the power dynamic heavily toward government entities.

The Judicial Review Fine Print

The bill also dives into the weeds of how courts review agency actions. First, it codifies the principle of agency deference (often called Chevron deference). If a law is silent or ambiguous, the court must defer to the agency’s reasonable interpretation, regardless of how significant the rule is (Sec. 12). This is a big deal because it stabilizes the regulatory landscape: once an agency makes a reasonable interpretation, courts are generally required to stick with it. Second, the bill sets a clear 6-year statute of limitations for challenging any final agency action (Sec. 13). If you want to sue over a regulation, you have six years from the date the rule was finalized to do it—no more, unless another law says otherwise. This provides certainty but also sets a firm deadline for challenges to major rules.