The SMART Act of 2025 would amend title 5 to require retrospective review of major rules and to establish a framework for measuring whether those rules achieve their stated objectives. It defines “major rule” by specific thresholds and requires agencies to publish a framework for assessment with a plan to collect data, measure outcomes, and report results.
The bill also sets timelines, exemptions, and oversight mechanisms to ensure ongoing accountability for major regulatory actions.
The bill creates a procedural path for evaluating major rules after implementation, including public input and potential modifications based on assessment findings. It limits judicial review to device-and-process questions rather than substantive policy disputes and authorizes appropriations to carry out the new requirements.
The overarching aim is to ensure major rules remain effective, necessary, and appropriately scoped over time.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds a formal framework for assessing major rules (as defined by thresholds) and requires ongoing measurements of outcomes, data collection plans, and periodic assessments up to 10 years after the rule becomes effective.
Who It Affects
Federal agencies issuing major rules, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OMB) staff, regulated industries with major rules, and state/local governments impacted by federal regulatory actions.
Why It Matters
It introduces structured, data-driven oversight of major rules, potentially improving accountability, coherence with policy objectives, and adjustment pathways if a rule underperforms or becomes obsolete.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The SMART Act would amend title 5 to require a retrospective review process for what it calls “major rules.” It defines major rules using clear thresholds for economic impact and other significant effects, and it requires agencies to publish a framework for how they will assess any proposed or final major rule. This framework must describe the rule’s objectives, the anticipated societal benefits and costs, and the methods for evaluating qualitative and quantitative outcomes.
It also requires a plan for data collection and public input, and a timeline for when assessments will occur (not to exceed 10 years after the rule’s effective date).
The Five Things You Need to Know
Defines ‘major rule’ as rules with $100M+ annual economic impact or other significant effects, Requires proposed and final rules to include a framework for assessing effectiveness, Mandates data collection, public input, and periodic reassessment, Assessment results must be published on agency websites within 180 days of completion, Judicial review is limited to procedural concerns, not substantive policy decisions
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Expanded definitions of major rule and Administrator
The bill adds to the definitions in section 551 by defining ‘Administrator’ as the head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs and adds ‘major rule’ to include rules that have either $100 million or more in annual economic effects, cause major price or cost changes, or significantly affect competition, employment, investment, productivity, or the ability of US enterprises to compete internationally.
Framework requirements for proposed major rules
On the date 1 year after enactment, agencies must include a framework when a proposed rule is published that could meet the major-rule definition. The framework must outline how the agency will measure effectiveness and set the stage for future assessments, creating a clear pathway for retrospective evaluation from the outset.
Framework requirements for final major rules
For final major rules, agencies must publish a framework that includes the rule’s objectives and a summary of anticipated societal benefits and costs, the chosen methodology for evaluating outcomes, and a plan for gathering data and soliciting public input for ongoing assessment.
Assessment mechanics
The framework must specify how the agency will assess actual versus expected benefits and costs, determine whether the rule remains necessary or should be modified, and evaluate alternatives that could achieve the objective with lower burdens. If a different methodology is used, agencies must通知 stakeholders of the change and explain why.
Agency head responsibilities
Agency heads must oversee timely compliance with the assessment requirements and ensure that assessment results are published promptly, fostering accountability and transparency in how major rules perform over time.
Judicial review limitations
Judicial review is restricted to procedural questions—whether the agency published the required framework and assessments—and does not allow substantive challenge to the policy merits of the major rule itself.
Applicability and transition
The subsection outlines when the framework applies, including exemptions for certain emergency actions, routine or periodic rules, or rules where retrospective review would be impracticable or contrary to public interest; it also provides for extensions of assessment deadlines under specific conditions.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Agency heads and regulatory staff gain clearer guidance and a structured process to gauge rule effectiveness.
- OMB’s regulatory analysis offices receive formal oversight guidance, promoting consistency across agencies.
- Regulated industries facing major rules benefit from clearer justifications and potential opportunities to propose alternatives earlier in the process.
- State and local governments encounter more predictable federal rule implementation timelines and clearer data on impacts.
- Public-interest groups focusing on regulatory accountability gain an accessible, formal mechanism to scrutinize major rules and their outcomes.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal agencies incur ongoing data collection, monitoring, and reporting burdens to meet the framework requirements.
- Regulated industries bear costs related to data gathering requests, compliance changes, and potential modifications to major rules based on assessments.
- Taxpayers may bear the cost of funding the enhanced oversight and administrative work required for retrospective reviews.
- Small businesses could face greater compliance costs if major-rule assessments reveal burdens that need modification or exemptions.
- Public institutions and researchers may be asked to participate in data gathering and public input processes, creating administrative overhead.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between rigorous, data-driven retrospective evaluation of major rules and the potential for added delay or administrative burden that could slow rulemaking or adjustment in fast-moving policy environments.
The SMART Act’s retrospective-review framework introduces a pathway to re-evaluate major rules after implementation. While the intent is to improve accountability and ensure rules remain relevant and effective, the added requirements could slow the issuance and modification of rules in some cases.
The bill provides exemptions for emergencies, routine actions, and other situations where a full retrospective review would be impracticable or unnecessary, but these carve-outs also create potential gaps in coverage. Agencies must coordinate with OMB to streamline assessments, and the act contemplates inter-agency alignment to avoid duplicative analyses where possible.
Data quality and public participation are important, but agencies will need robust data systems and clear communication to satisfy the framework’s expectations.
In short, the SMART Act is designed to institutionalize learning from rulemaking by requiring ongoing measurement and public input. The practical effectiveness of this approach will hinge on the quality of data gathered, the timeliness of assessments, and the degree to which agencies act on findings.
The balance between rigorous retrospective review and the need for timely regulatory action will determine whether the framework strengthens or slows policy responses over time.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.