The SMART Act of 2025 would require federal agencies to build in retrospective review for major rules—rules that have very large economic or other significant impacts—so regulators must assess, over time, whether those rules actually achieve their stated objectives and whether they remain necessary or should be adjusted. It defines a “major rule” as one with an annual economy-wide effect of $100 million or more, a major increase in costs to consumers or governments, or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, health, safety, or U.S. competitiveness. For proposed major rules and for final major rules, agencies would need to attach a framework outlining how they plan to measure effectiveness, gather data (including public input), and conduct assessments within up to 10 years of the rule’s effective date. Assessments would compare actual benefits and costs to those anticipated, consider whether the rule is still needed or could be improved, and explore better-aligned or less-burdensome alternatives. The act also creates oversight by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigns specific responsibilities to agency heads, with limited judicial review focused on whether the required frameworks and assessments were published, not on the substantive results. There are exemptions for already-reviewed rules, certain routine or emergency rules, and other preexisting statutory requirements.
Key Points
- 1Major rule framework and retrospective review required: Agencies must attach a framework to proposed major rules and to final major rules detailing objectives, expected benefits and costs, data collection plans, and an assessment timeline (no later than 10 years after the rule’s effective date) to evaluate effectiveness and ongoing impact.
- 2Assessment scope and methodology: Assessments must analyze actual benefits and costs versus those anticipated, determine if the rule is achieving its regulatory objective, consider whether the rule is now unnecessary or overlapping with other rules, and evaluate whether the rule should be expanded, streamlined, or modified or replaced by better alternatives.
- 3Data gathering, public input, and publication: Agencies must plan and implement data collection, include public input, and publish the assessment results on their websites within 180 days after completing an assessment. They must also identify trigger circumstances that would require a subsequent review.
- 4Oversight and exemptions: OMB will guide framework development, encourage coordination of related assessments, and may exempt certain rules (e.g., emergency rules without NPRM, or routine/annual rules) from the framework; extensions of up to 90 days for late assessments may be granted with justification.
- 5Judicial review limited: Courts can only review whether the agency published the framework and assessments; they cannot conduct substantive review of the framework, assessments, or rule merits. If a court finds noncompliance, it can require remand to the agency, but the rule can still take effect despite the court order.
- 6Scope and limitations: The act does not apply to rules reviewed before enactment, certain preexisting retrospective review requirements, interpretive or policy rules, or rules where the statute requires periodic authorization not less than every 10 years. A good-cause exemption applies to rules issued without a NPRM (e.g., emergencies) with a 6-month timeline to publish the framework.