Agencies get AI tools to quietly eliminate regulations—with no public safeguards.
H.R. 67 — Modernizing Retrospective Regulatory Review · Filed by Andy Biggs (R-AZ) · 1 cosponsor · Introduced Jan 3, 2025 · Reported out
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This bill requires federal agencies to conduct systematic reviews of existing regulations using technology and AI tools to identify outdated, redundant, or burdensome rules. It mandates that OMB issue guidance on how agencies should use these tools, requires each agency to submit a plan within two years, and then implement that plan within six months—with the goal of streamlining and potentially eliminating regulations deemed ineffective or excessive.
Why we flagged it
The bill establishes a procedural mechanism for agencies to review and potentially eliminate existing regulations using technology. It is not a direct deregulation bill but rather a process-enabler that may accelerate deregulation by making it easier to identify and remove rules.
What the text implies
- The bill does not distinguish between public-interest regulations (environmental, safety, labor, consumer protection) and business-compliance rules, creating risk that protective regulations could be eliminated alongside genuinely obsolete ones.
- Agencies have full discretion over which regulations to review and what to do with findings—there is no requirement to preserve rules that serve statutory mandates or protect vulnerable populations.
- The use of AI and algorithmic tools to identify 'burdensome' regulations is undefined; no standards are set for what constitutes excessive burden or how to weigh public benefit against compliance cost.
- The bill creates a two-year planning phase followed by immediate implementation, potentially accelerating regulatory removal without public notice-and-comment or impact analysis for each rule eliminated.
- Agencies must report to Congress, but the bill contains no requirement for public transparency, stakeholder input, or cost-benefit analysis of proposed rule removals.
Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.
Who it affects
The bill creates a process for identifying and potentially removing unnecessary regulations, which could reduce compliance costs and red tape for businesses and citizens. However, the mechanism is entirely discretionary—agencies decide which rules to review and what to do with findings—and there is no requirement to protect public-interest regulations (environmental, safety, labor, consumer protection) from removal. The bill may accelerate deregulation without safeguards for rules that protect p
Who stands to gain
- regulated industries (broadly)
- companies subject to environmental, labor, or consumer-protection rules
- financial services firms
- energy and extractive industries
Named in the bill
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Government Publishing Office (GPO), Federal Register, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Administrative Committee of the Federal Register
Where it stands
1 cosponsor: 1 Republicans.
- Jan 3, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
- Jan 3, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform”
- May 21, 2025 — Markup held in committee · Congress.gov: “Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held”
- May 21, 2025 — Reported out of committee · Congress.gov: “Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 24 - 18”
Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.
Money around this bill
1 lobbying clients named this bill on 1 disclosure filings across 1 quarter, Dec 2025 to Dec 2025. Those filings disclosed $73,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 27 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 0% of bills with at least one filing.
Andy Biggs, the sponsor, reported $9,100 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.
- Public Citizen — $73,000 on 1 filing
Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jan 15, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.
How this was measured
Analysis — Quorum's AI read the bill text published by Congress.gov (4,594 characters) on Aug 21, 2026. Section numbers in the findings refer to that text, linked below; transparency and hidden-provision scores are compared against the median of 16,222 analysed bills.
Status and sponsors — Congress.gov's bill record — actions, committee referrals and cosponsors — loaded nightly. The timeline shows status changes, not every procedural action.
Money — Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act filings whose specific-issue field names this bill for quarters ending Dec 2025 to Dec 2025. A filing's amount is reported whole beside the median number of bills a filing names; it is never divided across them. PAC receipts are FEC-reported contributions to the sponsor's candidate committee in the 2026 cycle.
As of — lobbying records through Jan 15, 2026 · page rendered 2026-10-20.
“Agencies get AI tools to quietly eliminate regulations—with no public safeguards.” QuorumCivic. https://share.quorumcivic.app/bill/119/hr67 Report an error
The week in bills
One email, Sunday: what Congress passed, what it changed, and who paid.
One link arrives to confirm the address. It is used for this email and nothing else, and every issue carries an unsubscribe link.