SBA banned from issuing rules that cost small businesses anything

What it does

This bill requires the Small Business Administration to ensure that the total cost of SBA-issued regulations to any small business concern cannot exceed zero starting in fiscal year 2026. In practice, this means the SBA cannot issue any new rules that impose costs on small businesses, and must repeal or modify existing rules to eliminate their costs. The bill also requires the SBA to report annually on rules issued by OTHER federal agencies that affect small businesses, but does not restrict those agencies.

Why we flagged it

The bill's operative mechanism is a hard zero-cost cap on SBA rulemaking affecting small businesses. It is not a deregulation bill per se—it does not repeal existing rules—but it freezes the SBA's ability to issue new rules with any cost impact and requires modification of existing rules to meet the zero-cost threshold. This is a narrow constraint on one agency's rulemaking authority.

What the text implies

• The zero-cost mandate may force the SBA to repeal or gut existing rules that protect small businesses (e.g., anti-discrimination, wage-and-hour, or fraud-prevention rules), because any compliance cost counts against the budget.
• The bill does not restrict other federal agencies (EPA, OSHA, FTC, etc.), so the vast majority of regulatory costs on small businesses remain untouched; the SBA's share of small-business regulatory burden is typically small relative to other agencies.
• The annual reporting requirement on other agencies' rules creates a tracking mechanism but no enforcement power, making it a data-collection mandate without teeth.
• A small business concern that benefits from an SBA rule (e.g., a rule that protects it from unfair competition or fraud) will lose that protection if the rule is repealed to meet the zero-cost threshold.

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

Who it affects

Small businesses gain relief from SBA regulatory costs, which may reduce compliance burdens and lower operating costs for that sector. However, the zero-cost mandate may prevent the SBA from issuing rules that protect small businesses (e.g., workplace safety, consumer fraud prevention, environmental compliance) or that level competitive playing fields—creating a net loss of protective regulation. The bill does not restrict other federal agencies, so most regulatory costs on small businesses rema

Who stands to gain

• small business concerns (reduced SBA compliance costs)
• industries with high regulatory sensitivity (e.g., manufacturing, construction, retail)

Named in the bill

Small Business Administration (SBA), Administrator of the SBA, Small business concerns (as defined in Small Business Act § 3), Federal agencies (EPA, OSHA, FTC, etc. — subject to reporting only)

Where it stands

4 cosponsors: 4 Republicans.

• Feb 4, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• Feb 4, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on Small Business · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on Small Business”

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, Jun 2026 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $216,377 in lobbying spend. A filing names 101 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.

Beth Van Duyne, the sponsor, reported $1,253,022 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.

• Associated General Contractors of America — $216,377 on 1 filing

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.