The REINS Act: A Cross-Partisan Imperative for Restoring Regulatory Accountability

The growth of the administrative state has marched forward for decades with little resistance. Agencies empowered by broadly worded statutes have interpreted their mandates to enact increasingly complex, far-reaching, and costly regulations that touch nearly every facet of American life. The REINS Act (Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny) is one of the serious legislative efforts to push back against this unchecked expansion of executive branch authority.

The REINS Act, at its core, is not a matter of left or right, but one of first principles. It seeks to reassert the constitutional responsibility of Congress to legislate and to hold itself accountable for the laws that govern the people. In doing so, it addresses multiple dimensions of regulatory dysfunction that cut across the ideological spectrum: the erosion of accountability, the skyrocketing economic costs of regulation, the dangers of concentrated executive power, and the hollowing out of deliberative governance.

CRF Director Andrew Langer recently did a series of short interviews with experts on the REINS Act, regulatory policy, and constitutional law for the Federal Newswire. This article pulls together some of the themes and specific issues surrounding the importance of the REINS Act.

The Crisis of Accountability

The most glaring problem in contemporary regulatory governance is the pervasive lack of accountability. The current system allows agencies to issue binding rules with enormous societal and economic consequences, rules that are often effectively untethered from clear legislative intent. As Jonathan Adler, incoming Tazewell Taylor Professor of Law at William & Mary, noted in a recent Federal Newswire Lunch Hour interview, "Congress loves power but hates responsibility."

This delegation problem is exacerbated by Congress’s aversion to responsibility. Voting on controversial policies risks political backlash; delegating authority allows members to avoid taking hard positions. They can posture for their constituents while blaming unpopular regulations on unelected agencies. The REINS Act seeks to end this abdication by requiring Congress to affirmatively approve economically significant rules before they take effect.

As Adler said, "Congress is very culpable... it doesn't legislate with the regularity that it used to."

The Escalating Costs of Regulation

Regulation is never free. Every new rule carries compliance costs, opportunity costs, and frequently unintended economic consequences that reverberate across industries, small businesses, and consumers. Dr. Adrian Moore of the Reason Foundation highlighted this reality, noting that neither agencies nor Congress possesses "a meaningful analytical framework by which to judge whether a regulation is good, bad, or indifferent."

The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) provide some economic assessments, but their resources and mandates are limited. Agencies often cherry-pick assumptions, fail to adequately account for long-term impacts, or disregard costs imposed on smaller actors less able to navigate complex compliance regimes.

Patrick McLaughlin of the Hoover Institution underscores the hidden nature of these costs.

"Regulations, effectively, are federal, or state, or local taxes that we should be more concerned about," he observed. He estimates that regulatory accumulation may have reduced U.S. GDP by as much as 25% by 2012—an economic loss of approximately $4 trillion.

"I did a study where I showed that the economy could have been 25% larger if we hadn't had regulations growing at the pace that they did."

The REINS Act creates a hard accountability backstop by requiring congressional approval for regulations with projected economic impacts exceeding $100 million annually. Lawmakers must face the public consequences of greenlighting such costly interventions.

Concentrated Executive Power: A Threat Across Administrations

The rise of the administrative state is not simply a problem of bureaucracy run amok; it is a constitutional crisis of concentrated executive power. The regulatory apparatus now serves as a de facto policymaking arm of the executive branch, often wielding lawmaking-like authority with little or no legislative oversight.

Steven Johnson, of the State Policy Network's Center for Practical Federalism, emphasized this risk, noting that while many criticize executive overreach when their opponents hold power, "when your person is in power, you might be fine with it." The REINS Act serves as a neutral structural check, equally applicable regardless of who controls the White House.

McLaughlin drives the point home: "Congress has abdicated that responsibility over the years by creating all these agencies that just run on autopilot. This is hopefully taking the autopilot away to some degree."

If you love the regulation they're pushing, fine, go vote on it, put it in. But it shouldn't be an unelected, faceless bureaucrat." – Steven Johnson.

The REINS Act offers a structural solution that transcends partisan cycles by reestablishing Congress as the primary policymaker for economically significant regulations, and it limits the ability of any president to rule by decree.

A Deterrent Against Regulatory Overreach

The REINS Act, beyond immediate accountability, serves as a powerful deterrent against regulatory excess. Agencies, knowing that major rules must secure congressional approval, would be incentivized to craft narrower, more defensible regulations that can withstand legislative scrutiny.

Joe Lupino Esposito of Pacific Legal Foundation points out that this would also reduce regulatory enforcement abuses: "Because you're going to have a lot of these regulations... come up before Congress, that's likely going to cut back on those types of prosecutions and adjudications."

McLaughlin also stresses how REINS would break Congress's perverse incentives to hide behind agencies: "It's a much safer approach if you're a politician to hand off responsibility for heavy decision-making to agencies... Reins takes a little bit of that away because now you have to vote up or down on all the regulations."

"The people writing these rules... are essentially independent of the president... you need some way to check this power." – Joe Lupino Esposito.

The Administrative State vs. Judicial Review

When Congress abdicates its lawmaking role, disputes over the scope and meaning of regulations inevitably fall to the courts. Over the past several decades, the judiciary has become the de facto battleground for regulatory policy. As Adler observed, "Every major regulation first has to go through the regulatory process, then has to go through extensive judicial review."

This judicial overload fuels the politicization of the courts. The REINS Act would relieve this pressure, enabling courts to return to their traditional role: protecting rights and ensuring procedural fairness, rather than arbitrating sweeping national policy disputes.

Patrick McLaughlin adds that regulatory politicization happens inside agencies as well: "Politics is everywhere. Congress should have a layer of accountability to hold the other branches accountable." McLaughlin's example of the Federal Railroad Administration’s shifting rulemaking on train crew sizes, flipping between administrations despite conflicting evidence, illustrates how agency rulemaking often becomes driven more by politics than data.

"If it’s going to get political on these things, then let’s actually engage politics in the process and have somebody have an up or down vote." – Jonathan Adler.

Cross-Partisan Implications: Why Everyone Should Care

Skepticism of concentrated executive power is not the exclusive domain of any political ideology. Both progressives and conservatives have reasons to fear unaccountable regulatory rulemaking, depending on which party controls the White House.

Progressives concerned about regulatory capture should recognize that unelected bureaucrats are not immune to corporate influence. Conservatives wary of expansive mandates should welcome mechanisms forcing Congress to openly deliberate.

Tim Frost, of the Cicero Institute, put it succinctly: "The Administrative Procedures Act is important because it’s a process. The REINS Act creates that lever for us—it’s a beneficial lever."

McLaughlin emphasizes that this should be bipartisan common sense: "If you’re worried about any abuse of power, you’re in Congress, you should want something like REINS."

"Speed and simplicity in rulemaking is a double-edged sword." – Tim Frost.

A Structural Reform Long Overdue

The REINS Act is not a cure-all. Without complementary reforms, improved economic analysis, streamlined legislative procedures, and careful rulemaking oversight, challenges will remain. But it represents a serious structural correction to a long-standing constitutional imbalance.

At a time when frustration with unaccountable government is rising on both sides, the REINS Act offers rare common ground for bipartisan institutional reform. It invites Congress to reclaim its rightful role and restore the necessary tension between the branches.