New rule: federal agencies must prove regulations won't raise costs by $50/year

What it does

This bill requires federal agencies to analyze how proposed regulations affect household costs before finalizing them. Agencies must publish a cost-impact analysis showing whether a rule would increase household costs by $50 or more annually, broken down by income level. Agencies cannot finalize rules that substantially increase costs unless the rule is required by law or addresses national security/disaster emergencies—and even then, emergency rules expire after one year unless Congress authorizes them. The OMB must annually report on major rules that have increased household costs and recommend repeals or legislative fixes.

Why we flagged it

The bill's functional purpose is to create a procedural barrier to regulations that increase household costs, with a very low threshold ($50/year) and a one-year emergency-rule sunset. While framed as consumer protection, it operates as a deregulatory mechanism that may block rules with net public benefits if their costs are visible and their benefits are diffuse or long-term.

What the text implies

• The $50/year threshold is so low that nearly all regulations affecting consumer prices (food safety, environmental, labor, healthcare) would trigger cost-impact analysis and potential blocking, creating a de facto regulatory veto for cost-conscious agencies.
• The bill does not require agencies to weigh regulatory benefits (lives saved, pollution prevented, worker safety) against costs, only to disclose costs. This asymmetry may systematically disadvantage regulations protecting diffuse public goods.
• Judicial review of agency cost-impact compliance (section 553b) creates a new litigation vector for regulated industries to challenge rules on procedural grounds, even if the underlying rule is sound.
• The one-year sunset on emergency rules may force agencies to choose between allowing a harmful condition to persist or repeatedly seeking congressional authorization, weakening executive capacity to respond to crises.
• OMB's annual report on major rules that 'substantially increased household costs' may become a political tool to target specific agencies or regulations for repeal, independent of their public-health or safety value.

Who it affects

The bill creates a transparency mechanism that could help citizens understand regulatory costs and challenge rules that raise living expenses, which is a public benefit. However, the $50-per-year threshold is extremely low and may paralyze routine safety, environmental, and labor regulations that provide offsetting public benefits (cleaner air, safer workplaces, consumer protections). The mechanism may systematically bias against regulations that protect vulnerable populations if their cost-bene

Who stands to gain

• regulated industries (energy, food, pharmaceuticals, finance, labor-intensive sectors)
• companies subject to environmental, safety, and consumer-protection rules

Named in the bill

Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Federal agencies (all), House of Representatives, Senate, Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 5, Title 5 USC)

Where it stands

1 cosponsor: 1 Republicans.

• Apr 30, 2026 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• Apr 30, 2026 — Referred to House Committee on the Judiciary · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary”

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