HB3378, the Racehorse Health and Safety Act of 2025, would repeal the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act of 2020 and replace it with a new interstate compact framework for regulating covered horseraces. The bill authorizes states to opt into a compact and, if they do, to create the Racehorse Health and Safety Organization (RHSO), which would coordinate state racing commissions and oversee breed-specific rules for Thoroughbreds, Standardbreds, and Quarter Horses. The RHSO would be responsible for developing and enforcing uniform scientific medication-control rules, racetrack safety rules, laboratory accreditation standards, and disciplinary procedures.
The bill establishes separate scientific medication control committees and a racetrack safety committee, each with industry and regulatory representation, to draft proposed rules for board approval. It also creates a nationwide database of horse safety, performance, health, and injury information, sets standards for testing and laboratory accreditation, and requires member states to adopt unfair-deceptive-practice laws covering undisclosed use of certain substances such as bisphosphonates. The bill further allows member states to decide whether their own racing commissions or the RHSO will enforce the rules, but provides that RHSO rules preempt conflicting state law within member states.
HB3378 would significantly alter the current federal-state regulatory structure for horseracing by replacing the existing federal integrity regime with a compact-based system centered on state participation. It would affect state racing commissions, racetracks, trainers, owners, breeders, jockeys, veterinarians, and other horse-support personnel, and it would also affect interstate wagering by limiting certain off-track wagering transmissions from non-member states. The bill includes detailed provisions on prohibited medications, testing, investigations, sanctions, due process, and racetrack accreditation, and it would require member states to fund the system through breed-specific fees and assessments.
Because no committee transcript or vote history was provided, there is no recorded floor or committee sentiment to summarize. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears designed to appeal to horseracing stakeholders who favor breed-specific regulation and greater state control, while also emphasizing horse welfare, safety, and integrity. The absence of recorded debate means there is no direct evidence of support or opposition in the available materials.
The main points of potential contention are likely to be federal preemption, the repeal of the 2020 federal horseracing law, the extent of RHSO authority over state commissions, and the funding and enforcement structure. Other likely concerns include the role of industry-appointed committee members, the confidentiality of some committee meetings, the breadth of prohibited acts and sanctions, and whether the compact model would produce more consistent safety standards or instead fragment oversight across states and breeds.
The bill would repeal the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act of 2020 and replace it with a new interstate compact authorized by Congress. In member states, RHSO rules would preempt conflicting state law on matters within its jurisdiction, and states would need to enact consent legislation and maintain statutes treating certain undisclosed horse sales as unfair or deceptive acts. The bill would also create new regulatory duties for state racing commissions, establish breed-specific fee assessments, and impose new requirements for medication control, racetrack safety, laboratory accreditation, enforcement, and disciplinary procedures affecting the horseracing industry.
No committee discussion or vote record was provided, so there is no documented legislative sentiment to report. From the bill text, the measure is framed as a horse-welfare and integrity bill and appears to be structured to preserve state participation and breed-specific input, suggesting an intent to attract support from racing stakeholders. At the same time, the repeal of the existing federal regime and the creation of a new compact-based authority indicate that the bill could draw scrutiny from those concerned about federal oversight, implementation complexity, and preemption.
Likely areas of contention include whether Congress should repeal the existing federal horseracing integrity law, whether a compact-based model would weaken or improve enforcement, and how much authority the RHSO should have over state racing commissions. The bill’s preemption clause, breed-specific funding assessments, and allowance for industry-appointed committee members may also be controversial, as may the closed meetings for some committees and the broad disciplinary powers, including lifetime bans and purse disgorgement. Stakeholders most likely to raise concerns would include state regulators, racing industry participants, and advocates focused on transparency, due process, and federal uniformity.