hold on there's just too much going on in Congress lmao...
Requires agencies to analyze and potentially block rules increasing household costs.
Representatives Mace and Massie, Republicans from South Carolina and Kentucky.
In committee, no House vote yet.
This bill, introduced by Republican Representatives Nancy Mace (SC) and Thomas Massie (KY), would force federal agencies to evaluate how new rules might increase household costs before they can be finalized. If a rule would significantly raise costs, it generally couldn't be enacted unless certain exceptions apply. The bill has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary for review, meaning it has not yet been voted on by the full House of Representatives.
Introduced Apr 30, 2026
The bill is currently in the 'Introduced' stage. This means it has been formally presented in the House of Representatives and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. For it to advance, the committee would need to consider it, potentially hold hearings, and then vote to send it to the full House for consideration. Until then, no further action can be taken.
If this bill becomes law, federal agencies would be required to analyze how proposed rules would impact average household costs, covering essentials like housing, food, and healthcare. If an analysis shows a rule would increase household costs by $50 or more per year, the agency generally couldn't implement it, except for specific emergencies or legally mandated rules. You, as a household, would also gain the ability to challenge an agency in court if you believe they failed to properly assess a rule's financial impact on families.
Supporters Say
Supporters say it protects families from rising costs due to government regulations.
Critics Say
Critics might say it adds unnecessary bureaucracy, potentially slowing important government actions.
Supporters believe this bill brings needed transparency to agency rulemaking, ensuring that the financial burden on everyday families is considered before new regulations are put in place. They argue it would act as a crucial check on government overreach and help keep the cost of living affordable. Critics, however, might argue that it could create significant delays for agencies addressing critical issues like public health or environmental protection, even if those actions might involve some new costs. They might also claim it could empower special interests to challenge necessary regulations.