Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
This bill amends Section 2222 of the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 to (1) replace the term "appropriate Federal banking agency" with "Federal financial institutions regulatory agency" (referencing the FFIEC Act definition), (2) require agencies on the regulatory Council to conduct reviews every five years instead of every ten, and (3) add a mandatory internal review of the cumulative impact of each agency’s regulations.
The internal review must assess effects on consumers’ access to financial products and services, availability of products to financial and nonfinancial firms, credit availability and market liquidity, the balance of benefits and costs for safety and soundness and overall economic activity, and—where practicable—quantify direct and indirect economic costs, and include recommendations to streamline, simplify, or eliminate duplicative or burdensome regulations.
Summaries of these internal reviews are to be included in the Council’s periodic reports.
On content alone, this is a modest, administratively focused bill that does not impose new spending or directly repeal rules, which historically increases chances of enactment compared with major substantive reforms. Its deregulatory emphasis and expanded review requirements could produce some opposition from consumer protection and prudential advocates, and the Senate may subject it to additional scrutiny, so likelihood is better than even but far from assured.
How solid the drafting looks.
Progressive is most concerned the bill could be used to roll back consumer protections and prioritize cost-cutting, while conservatives emphasize burden reduction and deregulatory benefits.
Progressive is most concerned the bill could be used to roll back consumer protections and prioritize cost-cutting, while conservatives emphasize burden reduction and deregulatory benefits.
A mainstream liberal would view the bill as a procedural tightening that could produce useful information about regulatory burdens and access to financial services, but would be wary that the explicit requirement to identify and recommend elimination of "duplicative, outdated, and unnecessarily burdensome regulations" could be used to justify rolling back consumer protections and safeguards for underserved communities.
They would welcome the explicit inclusion of consumer access and credit availability in the review criteria, but question whether the reviews will protect safety-and-soundness, anti-discrimination, and consumer-financial protections in practice.
They would want stronger transparency, independent analysis, and explicit protections for vulnerable populations before supporting it.
A pragmatic centrist would generally view this bill as a sensible update to regulatory review practice: shortening the review cycle to five years and requiring agencies to assess cumulative impacts can make rules more effective and less burdensome.
They would appreciate the bill’s focus on quantifying costs and assessing market liquidity and credit availability, but would be concerned about methodological rigor, resource needs for agencies to do thorough analyses, and the potential for politicized outcomes.
With added safeguards—clear methodologies, transparency, and possible independent review—a centrist would likely support the bill as an incremental improvement.
A mainstream conservative would likely view the bill positively as a pro-competition, pro-efficiency measure that forces regulators to justify and quantify regulatory burdens more regularly.
The five-year cadence and explicit charge to identify duplicative or unnecessarily burdensome regulations align with deregulatory priorities and could lead to reduced compliance costs for banks and nonbank firms.
They may want the process to be even more directive toward elimination of unnecessary rules, but will generally see the bill as a constructive, limited-government reform.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
On content alone, this is a modest, administratively focused bill that does not impose new spending or directly repeal rules, which historically increases chances of enactment compared with major substantive reforms. Its deregulatory emphasis and expanded review requirements could produce some opposition from consumer protection and prudential advocates, and the Senate may subject it to additional scrutiny, so likelihood is better than even but far from assured.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressive is most concerned the bill could be used to roll back consumer protections and prioritize cost-cutting, while conservatives emp…
On content alone, this is a modest, administratively focused bill that does not impose new spending or directly repeal rules, which histori…
Pro readers get the full perspective split, passage barriers, legislative design review, stakeholder impact map, and lens-based policy tradeoff analysis for REVIEW Act of 2025.
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.