The "Setting Manageable Analysis Requirements in Text Act of 2025" or the "SMART Act of 2025" requires agencies to include a framework for assessing the effectiveness of major rules, analyze the actual benefits and costs, and publish assessment results, while limiting judicial review to the publication of required documents. This act aims to ensure rules are meeting their objectives and are still necessary, while also allowing for adjustments based on new information.
James Lankford
Senator
OK
The SMART Act of 2025 seeks to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of major federal regulations by requiring agencies to develop frameworks for assessing the impacts of new rules, including costs, benefits, and whether the rule is still necessary. Agencies must analyze the data gathered and publish their assessment results, and the head of each agency will be responsible for ensuring timely compliance and publication. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs will provide guidance and may grant exemptions or extend deadlines. Judicial review is limited to whether the agency published the required framework and assessments, not the substance of those documents, and necessary appropriations are authorized to carry out the amendments.
SMART Act Mandates Review of 'Major Rules' Costing Over $100M: Will It Boost Efficiency or Just Add Red Tape?
The "Setting Manageable Analysis Requirements in Text Act of 2025," or SMART Act, aims to make federal agencies regularly check if their big-ticket regulations are actually working as intended. Specifically, it forces agencies to build in a review process for any "major rule" – defined as those with an annual economic impact of $100 million or more, or that significantly hike costs or mess with competition, jobs, health, safety, or the environment.
Reality Check: How It's Supposed to Work
The bill requires that, when an agency proposes a major rule, it has to include a preliminary plan for how it'll measure if the rule's effective down the road. When a major rule is finalized, the agency must include a detailed framework. Think of it like a built-in instruction manual for checking their work later. This framework has to spell out the rule's goals (both the good and the costs), how they'll analyze its impact, how they'll get data (including asking the public), and a timeline for checking in (usually within 10 years). (Section 2)
For example, if the EPA rolls out a new regulation on industrial emissions (the "major rule"), they'd have to explain upfront how they'll measure its impact on air quality, public health, and the costs to businesses. They'd also need a plan to collect data and get feedback from, say, both industry groups and communities affected by pollution. This is all in the framework.
Show Your Work: The Review Process
Then, the agency has to actually use that framework to analyze the real-world benefits and costs. They have to figure out if the rule is hitting its targets, if it's still needed, or if it needs tweaking. If the rule stays in place, they need to identify what would trigger another review in the future. The results of this review have to be posted on the agency's website within 180 days of finishing it. (Section 2)
The Fine Print: Loopholes and Limits
Here's where it gets interesting. The head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) can grant exemptions – for example, in emergencies or for "routine" rules. They can also extend deadlines by up to 90 days. (Section 2) Plus, some rules are already off the hook, like ones already reviewed by OIRA, or those with existing robust review processes, or that Congress has to reauthorize every 10 years. (Section 2)
Crucially, the bill limits what the courts can do. You can only sue to make the agency publish the framework and assessment, not challenge the actual findings. And if the agency doesn't comply? The only remedy is a court order to publish – the rule still takes effect. The OIRA Administrator's decisions? Totally untouchable by the courts. (Section 2)
So while the SMART Act sounds good on paper – more accountability, better regulations – the details raise some questions. Will agencies game the system? Will exemptions become the norm? And with limited judicial review, who keeps the agencies honest? It's a mixed bag, with the potential for both real improvements and some serious loopholes.