Unfunded Mandates Accountability and Transparency Act of 2026
Sen. Fischer Introduces Bill to Require Cost Checks on Major Federal Regulations
This bill was recently introduced in the Senate and is currently being reviewed by the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. It is in the early stages of the legislative process and has no further actions scheduled at this time. The bill is considered active as it waits for the committee to decide on the next steps.
Legislative Progress
Key Points
- Federal agencies would have to do a detailed cost-benefit study before creating any major rule that costs the economy $100 million or more per year. These studies must look at effects on jobs, prices, competition, and different regions of the country.
From policy text
“an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more, adjusted once every 5 years to reflect increases in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers”
View in full text - Agencies would be required to pick the regulatory option that maximizes net benefits. If they want to choose a different path, they need approval from the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs and must explain why the extra costs are justified.
From policy text
“an agency shall, from the alternatives identified and considered under section 202(c)(1)(B), select the alternative that maximizes net benefits, taking into consideration only the costs and benefits that arise within the scope of the statutory provision that authorizes the rulemaking”
View in full text - The bill expands who gets a seat at the table during rulemaking. Agencies must consult early and often with state, local, and Tribal governments, as well as small businesses and other private sector parties, starting before a rule is even formally proposed.
From policy text
“Consultations described in those subsections shall take place as early as possible, before issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking, continue through the final rule stage, and be integrated explicitly into the rulemaking process.”
View in full text - Independent regulatory agencies like the SEC and FCC would be brought under these requirements for the first time, though the Federal Reserve's monetary policy decisions would remain exempt.
From policy text
“Nothing in title II, III, or IV shall apply to rules that concern monetary policy proposed or implemented by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System or the Federal Open Market Committee.”
View in full text - People and businesses harmed by a major rule could sue in court if the agency failed to do the required cost-benefit analysis or failed to pick the option that maximizes net benefits.
From policy text
“A person that is aggrieved by final agency action in adopting a major rule that is subject to section 202 is entitled to judicial review of whether the agency complied with section 202(b), 202(c)(1), or 205 with respect to the rule.”
View in full text
Impact Analysis
Personal Impact
Milestones
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Introduced in Senate
Related News
2 articles
House Passes Bill Pushing Back on Federal Appliance Meddling
The article discusses House efforts to curb federal regulations and highlights the Unfunded Mandates Accountability and Transparency Act (UMATA) as a 'timely and necessary modernization of federal oversight' to ensure transparency regarding the costs of federal directives.
House Bill Setting New Limits on Rule-Making Readied for Vote
A bill (HR-580) has been readied for voting in the House that would add new limits to federal agency regulatory activities. The bill would require federal agencies to prepare and publish regulatory impact analyses for major rules with economic impacts of $100 million or more.
Source Information
Document Type
Congressional Bill
Official Title
Unfunded Mandates Accountability and Transparency Act of 2026
Data Sources
Sponsor
Cosponsors
(1)Analysis generated by AI. Always verify with official sources.