Federal agencies must now show their work on rules—or explain why they can't.

What it does

This bill requires federal agencies to update their guidelines for ensuring the quality and accuracy of scientific and technical information they use to develop rules and guidance. It mandates that agencies disclose the factual material and sources they relied on when making rules, with limited exceptions for confidential or legally protected information, and requires this information be made publicly available in rulemaking dockets before or when rules are finalized.

Why we flagged it

The bill's core mechanism is procedural: it requires agencies to disclose the evidence and reasoning behind rules. This is fundamentally about transparency and public access to government decision-making, not about changing substantive policy or creating new rights.

What the text implies

• Agencies may face increased litigation risk if disclosed evidence is weak or contradictory, potentially slowing rulemaking or prompting rule revisions.
• The 'best reasonably available' standard is undefined and may become a litigation flashpoint—agencies and challengers may dispute what evidence qualifies.
• Exceptions for legally protected information (trade secrets, copyrighted material, classified data) are broad and may allow agencies to withhold material facts under the guise of legal constraint.
• No new funding is authorized, so compliance costs fall on existing agency budgets, potentially diverting resources from other priorities.
• The requirement to disclose 'critical factual material' before or at the time of rulemaking may accelerate timelines and increase pressure on agencies to finalize rules quickly.

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

Citizens gain transparency into the factual and scientific bases of federal rules, enabling informed public comment and legal challenge. The disclosure requirement strengthens democratic accountability by making agency reasoning visible, though implementation costs and exceptions for protected information may limit access in some cases.

Named in the bill

Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Federal agencies, Information Quality Act (section 515, Public Law 106–554), Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018 (Public Law 115–435)

Where it stands

1 cosponsor: 1 Democrats.

• Dec 1, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• Dec 1, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on the Judiciary and House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform · Congress.gov: “Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on the…”
• Dec 2, 2025 — Markup held in committee · Congress.gov: “Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held”
• Dec 2, 2025 — Reported out of committee · Congress.gov: “Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 43 - 0”
• Feb 23, 2026 — Floor vote scheduled · Congress.gov: “Mr. Timmons moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill”
• Feb 24, 2026 — Passed the House · Congress.gov: “On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 362 - 1…”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.

Money around this bill

2 lobbying clients named this bill on 3 disclosure filings across 2 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $20,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 4 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.

More lobbying clients named this bill than 41% of bills with at least one filing.

Lisa McClain, the sponsor, reported $1,545,787 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.

• Center for Individual Freedom — $20,000 on 1 filing
• 60 Plus Association — $0 on 2 filings

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 19, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.