Opinion - Congress should seize this big, beautiful chance to REIN in regulatory overreach
A provision that would have benefited the public tremendously by enabling Congress to rein in out-of-control, costly regulations was stripped out of the budget reconciliation bill recently passed by the U.S. House of Representatives. This was a sad turn of events that hopefully will be corrected in the Senate.
Nearly a decade ago, Congress considered legislation to fundamentally alter how regulations are adopted, defending personal and economic freedom in the process: the Regulations of the Executive In Need of Scrutiny or REINS Act. REINS provisions that were a part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act until shortly before its passage would have put Congress back in the driver's seat regarding regulations.
The importance of the REINS Act and the efforts to get it passed as part of the reconciliation bill cannot be overstated. Tens of thousands of new regulations are imposed by unaccountable agency bureaucrats each year, limiting individual liberty and choice and increasing costs in myriad, often unrecognized ways. Regulations are hidden taxes that siphon hundreds of billions of dollars from individual households and businesses every year. They represent the largest single fiscal burden on the economy outside of individual and corporate income taxes.
The measure has been misleadingly described as a 'wholesale rollback of federal regulations.' In fact, it would merely force Congress to take responsibility for regulations developed by executive agencies to execute the laws it passes.
Under REINS, if Congress disagrees with an agency's interpretation of what a law requires or imposes, Congress could prevent the regulations in question from taking effect.
The scare-tactics used to vilify REINS inevitably involve a focus on regulations that protect human health and the environment. But many regulations — especially in energy and environmental policy — provide little or no measurable benefits in these areas despite imposing huge costs. The rules are often designed to expand the budgets and power of bureaucrats, creating make-work ventures and guaranteeing lifetime employment for agency staff.
In a craven attempt to evade responsibility, past Congresses found it easy to delegate lawmaking power to executive agencies. Congress took credit for passing vague feel-good laws, only to blame agencies for going overboard, claiming they never intended the resulting onerous outcomes. Congress then publicly assails agencies for going beyond what lawmakers intended but does nothing to correct the supposed overreach.
Recognizing the growing problem of overregulation, in 1996 Congress passed the Congressional Review Act, which granted Congress the power under limited circumstances to review and block major regulations retroactively. The Congressional Review Act, however, has been used to overturn only 20 out of tens of thousands of regulations enacted in the nearly 30 years since it passed — in part because the president is allowed to veto resolutions under that law.
The REINS Act is superior because it reverses this dynamic by requiring congressional approval for all major regulations — an opt-in system, so to speak, instead of opt-out. And under REINS, the president would not be authorized to ignore the will of Congress and its interpretation of its own laws, because no veto is available.
The REINS provisions House Republicans inserted into the reconciliation bill are even more expansive than the original REINS legislation, requiring that any 'major rule that increases revenue' be approved through a joint resolution of the House and Senate. The provisions would have also allowed lawmakers to retroactively terminate countless rules that federal agencies have already implemented by requiring agencies to submit them to Congress for review. Rules that Congress fails to approve would automatically sunset.
Also, multiple recently finalized regulations could be rescindedwith a single resolution rather than each individually as the Congressional Review Act requires.
House sponsors had to remove the REINS provisions to avoid letting Democrats filibuster the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in the Senate. However, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) reportedly believes he can make some of the provisions pass muster with the Senate parliamentarian, so that they can be reinserted and the bill can still pass with a simple majority.
I believe the REINS provisions maybe the single most beneficial law Congress could adopt to get regulators' boots off the throats of average people and businesses. Congress alone was delegated the power to regulate interstate commerce. It didn't jealously guard that power before now; it should do so going forward.
H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D., is director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy at The Heartland Institute, a non-partisan, non-profit research organization based in Arlington Heights, Illinois.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Los Angeles Times
30 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Mexican president condemns L.A. violence, calls on Mexicans to act peacefully
MEXICO CITY — As images of chaos in Los Angeles dominated Mexican media, President Claudia Sheinbaum condemned the weekend clashes but refrained from any direct denunciation of Washington's hard-line immigration tactics — while urging Mexican citizens in California to eschew violence. Sheinbaum, who has won widespread acclaim for her deft handling of incendiary pronouncements by President Trump on tariffs, drug smuggling and other issues, again sought to walk a fine line: She called on U.S. authorities to 'respect the human dignity' of 'hard-working' and 'honest' Mexican immigrants, while denouncing unlawful acts. 'Burning patrol cars seems more like an act of provocation than one of resistance,' Sheinbaum said Monday. A day earlier, the president had been more pointed in her critique of U.S. immigration roundups, which have drawn widespread outrage here. 'The immigration phenomenon cannot be dealt with through violence or raids,' Sheinbaum told a crowd Sunday at a hospital ribbon-cutting outside the capital. News reports and social media accounts in Mexico have widely circulated images of U.S. agents in tactical gear facing off against protesters baring Mexican flags. 'We call on the government of the United States to avoid any act of repression and rectify its unjust and arbitrary policy against millions of immigrants,' Gerardo Fernández Noroña, president of the Mexican Senate and a member of Sheinbaum's ruling Morena bloc, told reporters. On the streets in Mexico City, many Mexicans focused not on the protests, but recent raids by immigration agents in Southern California. They assailed what they viewed as unwarranted attacks against compatriots and relatives. 'I have some cousins living in California and they're very worried and frightened about the raids,' said Alejandra Morales, 47, who works in a rehab clinic in the capital. 'They are good people who only seek a better life for their kids. Trump may ruin their lives.' Said Sofía González, 32, a veterinarian: 'I think President Sheinbaum should be very forceful in her protests against Trump. We've had enough of Trump doing crazy things and maltreating Mexicans.' In her comments, Sheinbaum expressed appreciation to Los Angeles for having provided a home for generations of Mexican immigrants and their families. Mexican citizens are the largest immigrant group in the United States, numbering more than 11 million, according to various estimates. Mexican-born immigrants are widely dispersed across the country, though Los Angeles is still seen here as the capital of the Mexican disapora. Los Angeles 'has been generous, and we Mexicans have been generous with this city,' Sheinbaum said. According to the Mexican foreign ministry, 42 Mexican citizens were arrested in the recent raids, 37 men and 5 women. Four had previous removal orders and have already been expelled back to Mexico; two others agreed to return to Mexico voluntarily. Ronald Johnson, the U.S. ambassador in Mexico City, defended the Trump administration crackdown, while also praising Mexico and its people. 'The violent protesters in LA don't represent the Mexican people: dignified and hard-working, that we know and respect,' Johnson wrote in Spanish on X. 'Our actions protect every community and reinforce the rule of law. Mexico is our partner and our nations are profoundly united.' Sheinbaum's reaction to the clashes in Los Angeles is in line with her efforts to avoid disputes with the Trump administration. Her motto has been: 'cooperation, not subjugation.' The president has criticized Trump's mass deportation agenda, but said that Mexico welcomes its deported citizens. To date, Mexican authorities say, deportations from the United States to Mexico have not spiked, despite the Trump administration policies. In recent years, the United States has removed about 200,000 Mexican citizens back to Mexico each year. Special correspondent Cecilia Sánchez Vidal contributed.


Hamilton Spectator
32 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
World Cup host city organizers acknowledge immigration crackdown may impact next year's tournament
NEW YORK (AP) — Philadelphia's host city executive for the 2026 World Cup says organizers accept that an immigration crackdown by President Donald Trump's administration may be among the outside events that impact next year's tournament. 'There are certainly things that are happening at the national level, the international level, there are going to be geopolitical issues that we don't even know right now that are going affect the tournament next year, so we recognize that we're planning within uncertainty,' Meg Kane said Monday at a gathering of the 11 U.S. host city leaders, one year and two days ahead of the tournament opener. The World Cup will be played at 16 stadiums in the U.S., Mexico and Canada from June 11 to July 19 next year, a tournament expanded to 48 nations and 104 games. All matches from the quarterfinals on will be in the U.S., with the final at MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey. 'Whether it's the Olympics, whether it's a World Cup, whether it's a Super Bowl, you name it, anytime you've got a major international sporting event, geopolitics is going to have a role,' said Alex Vasry, CEO of the New York/New Jersey host committee. Kane said the host committees must adapt to decisions made by others. 'One of the things that I think we all recognize is that we have to be really good at operating within that uncertainty,' Kane said. 'I think for each of our cities, we want to be prepared to make any person that is coming and makes the decision to come to the United States or come to this World Cup feel that they are welcome. We do not play a role necessarily in what is happening in terms of the decisions that are made.' Trump's travel ban on citizens from 12 countries exempted athletes, coaches, staff and relatives while not mentioning fans. 'We allow for FIFA to continue having constructive conversations with the administrations around visas, around workforce, around tourism,' Kane said. FIFA is running the World Cup for the first time without a local organizing committee in the host nation. Asked in late April whether FIFA president Gianni Infantino was available to discuss the tournament, FIFA director of media relations Bryan Swanson forwarded the request to a member of the media relations staff, who did not make Infantino available. Legislation approved by the House of Representatives and awaiting action in the Senate would appropriate $625 million to the Federal Emergency Management Agency 'for security, planning, and other costs related to the 2026 FIFA World Cup.' The 11 U.S. host committees have been consulting with each other on issues such as transportation for teams and VIPs, and for arranging fan fests. At the last major soccer tournament in the U.S., the 2024 Copa America final at Hard Rock Stadium in Miami Gardens, Florida, started 82 minutes late after fans breached security gates. 'Certainly we were not involved in the planning or the logistics for that particular match,' said Alina Hudak, CEO of the Miami World Cup host committee. She said local police 'have done an extensive review of the after-action reports related to that in collaboration with the stadium and so all of the things that happened are in fact being reviewed and addressed and I can assure you that everything is being done within our power to make sure that the appropriate measures are being placed, the appropriate perimeters.' ___ AP soccer:


Gizmodo
32 minutes ago
- Gizmodo
Massive Tech Layoffs May Be the Fault of a 2017 Trump Tax Cut
The good times in Silicon Valley are over—at least as far as the current generation of coders is concerned. The software industry is shrinking and, since 2023, the tech industry has been hemorrhaging jobs at an astounding rate. Workers who would've been secure several years ago are now out on their asses. While the reasons for this are diverse (AI is often discussed as a potential culprit and the overall economy has had its ups and downs over the past several years), one potential driver could also be the tax cuts that Trump passed in 2017. It turns out that a little-known provision of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017 altered a longstanding loophole, known as Section 174, that allowed the tech industry to offload the cost of its research and development operations onto the federal government. Prior to the TCJA, tech companies could deduct 100 percent of the costs of R&D, allowing tech businesses the freedom to commit significant resources towards innovation. Bloomberg reports that, as Congress sought to find a way to offset the cost of giving big tax cuts to billionaires, one place where they discovered fat to trim was the tech industry's R&D funding. 2017's bill shifted the deduction from a full write-off to funding that would have to be parsed out over a period of several years. The provision that pared back the funding did not kick in until 2022, however. Not long after it went into effect, the tech industry began shedding jobs like nobody's business. Indeed, 2023 and 2024 were historically bad years for the tech industry, with major companies like Meta, Amazon, and Google booting workers by the thousands. Quartz took a deeper look at the ties between this policy shift and the tech industry's troubles and now speculates that there is a positive correlation: …the delayed change to a decades-old tax provision — buried deep in the 2017 tax law — has contributed to the loss of hundreds of thousands of high-paying, white-collar jobs. That's the picture that emerges from a review of corporate filings, public financial data, analysis of timelines, and interviews with industry insiders. One accountant, working in-house at a tech company, described it as a 'niche issue with broad impact,' echoing sentiments from venture capital investors also interviewed for this article. Some spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive political matters. Quartz also notes that the policy change would have translated into a loss of income for a variety of positions: The tax benefits of salaries for engineers, product and project managers, data scientists, and even some user experience and marketing staff — all of which had previously reduced taxable income in year one — now had to be spread out over five- or 15-year periods. The reality of the government's subsidization of Silicon Valley is particularly ironic given the rabid anti-government sentiment currently circulating in the industry. People like Marc Andreessen would have you believe that tech's R&D can be funded through private money alone, despite no reputable track record of it happening. Elon Musk's DOGE, meanwhile, recently attacked the very parts of the government that have been responsible for helping companies like his own (Tesla) flourish. It's yet another sign that America's billionaires are so greed-addled that they're willing to shoot a gift horse in the mouth and call it victory. Not everybody in the tech industry is an idiot, however. There is currently a concerted effort to reestablish the government's R&D subsidy. The American Innovation and R&D Competitiveness Act, which was introduced by a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers, would restore the full flow of federal dollars for tech's development needs. Last month, representatives from major tech firms reportedly signaled to the Trump administration that they might pull back from previous pledges of U.S. investment if the full tax subsidy didn't return.