Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Requires OMB (through OIRA) to report on agencies making regulations machine-readable and on eCFR recognition; issue guidance (within 18 months) for agencies to use technology, including algorithmic tools and AI, to conduct retrospective regulatory reviews and train staff; require each agency to submit a two-year plan to OIRA and specified congressional committees for implementing that guidance and to identify regulations or categories for review; agencies must implement their plan components within 180 days after submission.
Liberals emphasize risks of deregulatory use and AI bias
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill sets out a clear administrative framework to modernize retrospective regulatory review: it assigns responsibilities, imposes deadlines, and requires guidance, plans, and implementation.
Requires OMB (through OIRA) to report on agencies making regulations machine-readable and on eCFR recognition; issue guidance (within 18 months) for agencies to use technology, including algorithmic tools and AI, to conduct retrospective regulatory reviews and train staff; require each agency to submit a two-year plan to OIRA and specified congressional committees for implementing that guidance and to identify regulations or categories for review; agencies must implement their plan components within 180 days after submission.
Administrative-modernization bills often advance, but interchamber procedures and emerging AI concerns create moderate risk of delay or amendment.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill sets out a clear administrative framework to modernize retrospective regulatory review: it assigns responsibilities, imposes deadlines, and requires guidance, plans, and implementation. The statutory construction is procedurally specific in sequencing and actors but leaves substantive technical standards, funding, enforcement, and safeguards largely unspecified.
Liberals emphasize risks of deregulatory use and AI bias
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals emphasize risks of deregulatory use and AI bias
Supportive of improved transparency and accessibility for regulations, but cautious about formalizing AI-driven review methods.
Concerned retrospective reviews could be used to aggressively roll back protections unless safeguards and public participation are required.
Generally favorable to modernizing regulatory review and improving efficiency, while wanting clear cost estimates, timelines, and safeguards.
Will weigh practical implementation, oversight, and whether agencies receive adequate resources.
Generally supportive because the bill facilitates identification and reduction of burdensome regulations using technology.
May view it as a tool to advance deregulation and regulatory simplification, though some may want stronger mandates to remove rules.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Administrative-modernization bills often advance, but interchamber procedures and emerging AI concerns create moderate risk of delay or amendment.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals emphasize risks of deregulatory use and AI bias
Administrative-modernization bills often advance, but interchamber procedures and emerging AI concerns create moderate risk of delay or ame…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill sets out a clear administrative framework to modernize retrospective regulatory review: it assigns responsibilities, imposes deadlines, and requires guidance, plans,…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.