The SCRUB Act of 2025 would create a broad regulatory review and rollback framework for federal agencies. Its central feature is a “cut-go” requirement: when an agency issues a new rule, it must repeal existing rules or sets of rules with identified cost reductions at least equal to the cost of the new rule, using calculations certified by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). The bill also allows agencies to bank prior deregulatory actions for up to two years to offset later rules, and it bars agencies from counting non-monetized or unquantified factors when calculating regulatory costs for these purposes.
The bill directs the United States DOGE Service to conduct a retrospective review of the Code of Federal Regulations and identify rules to repeal, with a stated goal of reducing cumulative federal regulatory costs by at least 33 percent by July 4, 2026. It prioritizes major rules, older rules, paperwork-heavy rules, rules that burden small entities, and rules that may be obsolete, duplicative, ineffective, anti-competitive, or insufficiently grounded in statute. It also requires agencies to include a future review plan for each new rule, generally within 10 years, and authorizes repeal of rules that fail the bill’s criteria. Judicial review would be available for agency noncompliance.
If enacted, the bill would significantly alter federal administrative law and rulemaking practice by imposing a mandatory offset regime for new regulations and by creating a structured process for retrospective deregulation. It would affect agencies across the executive branch, the OMB/OIRA review process, and the body of existing federal regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations. The bill would also limit reissuance of repealed rules in substantially similar form unless later specifically authorized by statute.
No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee sentiment to assess. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears strongly deregulatory and designed to reduce compliance burdens, but it also raises substantial administrative and legal questions because it centralizes repeal authority, relies on DOGE in a major role, and excludes non-monetized harms and benefits from cost calculations. Those features are likely to be the main points of debate if the bill advances.
The most notable contention points are likely to be the mandatory repeal offsets, the 33 percent cost-reduction target, the exclusion of non-quantified factors from cost analysis, and the role assigned to DOGE and OMB in identifying and repealing rules. Supporters would likely view the bill as a tool to cut red tape, improve competitiveness, and reduce burdens on businesses and small entities; opponents would likely argue it could weaken health, safety, environmental, consumer, and labor protections by prioritizing cost reduction over broader public-interest considerations.
The bill would amend federal regulatory practice by adding new statutory requirements for agencies to offset the cost of new rules through repeal of existing rules, to plan for periodic review of new rules, and to submit to OIRA certification of cost calculations. It would also authorize and direct executive-branch review and repeal of existing regulations, limit reissuance of repealed rules, and make agency noncompliance subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act. In practical terms, it would reshape how agencies promulgate, justify, and maintain regulations across the federal government.
No votes or committee discussion are included, so there is no direct recorded sentiment from lawmakers in the provided materials. The bill’s text reflects a clear deregulatory and cost-cutting orientation, suggesting support from lawmakers favoring reduced regulatory burdens and skepticism toward expansive federal rulemaking. At the same time, the breadth of the repeal mandate and the emphasis on cost reduction over unquantified benefits suggest the bill would likely draw opposition from those concerned about weakening substantive protections and concentrating repeal authority in the executive branch.
The main points of contention are likely to be whether agencies should be required to repeal existing rules before issuing new ones, whether regulatory costs should be measured only in monetized terms, and whether a 33 percent cumulative cost-reduction goal is realistic or appropriate. Another likely dispute is the bill’s assignment of a central role to DOGE and OMB in reviewing and repealing regulations, which may be viewed as bypassing agency expertise and normal rulemaking processes. Critics may also object that the bill could force repeal of rules that protect health, safety, the environment, workers, consumers, or competition, while supporters are likely to argue that it targets obsolete, duplicative, or overly burdensome regulations and promotes economic growth.