Republicans in Congress are facing a brief chance to make a significant impact on the administrative state by integrating the Rein Act into the GOP’s settlement bill.
The Rein Act, which stands for “regulation from enforcement laws that mandate scrutiny,” requires congressional approval for “major rules.” Advocates believe it will restore constitutional balance and benefit the economy. The GOP has a chance to fast-track some of this legislation through a major budget bill, though there are procedural and political challenges along the way.
Even though Congress is intended to be the government’s authoritative body, unelected bureaucrats currently issue a significant number of legal orders. According to the House Subcommittee on Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust, during the last year of the Biden administration, Congress enacted about 150 laws, while administrative agencies finalized over 3,000 rules.
The law is designed to “curb unelected bureaucrats” and “return accountability to the rule-making process, safeguarding individual rights and reaffirming Congressional power.” It was introduced in the Senate, as noted in a statement to a news foundation.
In late April, the House Judiciary Committee endorsed it. A version of the Rein Act is part of a settlement bill that reflects the priorities from the Trump administration. If Republicans manage to pass these budget bills, including the Rein Act, the Senate’s settlement process allows them to push through eligible laws with a simple majority vote.
Rep. Kat Cammack, a Florida Republican, described it as a “multi-generational change,” asserting that it restructures Washington’s culture, making it potentially more impactful than the reconciliation itself.
The Rein Act has been introduced in various legislatures since 2009 and has passed the House several times, including in 2023. However, it has faced fierce opposition from most Democrats and has never cleared the Senate as a standalone measure due to the 60-vote threshold needed to overcome a filibuster.
Over the past several decades, regulations have surged. Between 1970 and 2019, the number of federal restrictions increased from 400,000 to over a million. The House Oversight Committee’s report for 2024 indicates that the Biden administration alone is responsible for $1.3 trillion inflicted by the Environmental Protection Agency and has imposed more than $1.7 trillion in regulatory costs on the economy.
Even if the House passes a version of the settlement package, advocates for the Republican proposal must demonstrate that it adheres to rules regarding expenditure or income.
The previous definitions of major rules stated that they significantly affect the economy, exceeding $100 million annually. The current proposal aims to widen this definition by including rules that “increase revenue,” as noted by Cammack.
There could be a need for further adjustments to focus on rules with direct budget implications, suggested Senator Mike Lee from Utah.
He mentioned exploring potential enhancements to what has already been achieved under the Trump administration, highlighting that some priorities should take center stage, but there’s room for more under reconciliation.
While these updates could promote government accountability, they might also restrict the legislation’s effectiveness in managing the entrenched control of the administrative state, according to Wayne Cruz, a researcher at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Cruz pointed out that while partial reforms are positive, they don’t fully restore accountability to Congress. He argued that regulations often have a larger impact than mere federal spending.
Speaker Johnson has expressed hope that the rein law would be included in the final bill. However, Soren Dayton, governance director at the American Foundation for Innovation, voiced some doubts, suggesting that expanding Congressional authority may lead to greater scrutiny of lawmakers.
He questioned whether lawmakers genuinely want this accountability, noting uncertainty about their willingness to vote for such measures.
Moderate Senate Republicans like Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine have refrained from commenting on their support for the proposal. Reports indicate both senators are opposed to some aspects of the proposed settlement bill.
It’s worth noting that some Democrats have criticized the proposal as a means to undermine agencies responsible for ensuring public health and safety.
Illinois Senator Dick Durbin recently remarked that reducing enforcement authority would be a severe mistake.
Proponents of the Rein Act counter that such concerns are exaggerated, asserting it does not eliminate beneficial public health regulations.
If Congress succeeds in passing the Rein Act, it could potentially challenge previous legal precedents that have historically allowed courts to defer to federal agencies on ambiguous laws.
Dayton pointed out that while Democrats may frame the issue as a small government agenda, similar proposals have gained traction in numerous states across the country.
Regardless of the outcome, it remains crucial for Congress to pursue the final passage of the Rein Act, as stated by Lee, who emphasized the need to free America from regulatory overreach.
While President Trump hasn’t explicitly commented on the Rein Act, he has prioritized deregulation within his administration, making calls for agencies to eliminate existing rules and regulations that hinder economic growth.
