HR-8950-119
Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Sponsored by Nikema Williams (D-GA)
What it does
The REPORTS Act would require federal agencies to publish an analysis of how any proposed "major rule" could affect people living at, near, or below the poverty line and racial inequity, alongside the rule's notice of proposed rulemaking. It would also direct the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to publish annual reports for 10 years examining two to five federal programs or policies with substantial economic impact, assessing their effects on poverty and racial inequity. Analyses may optionally include an examination of the racial wealth gap.
Who benefits
Low-income Americans and racial minority communities who may gain greater visibility into how federal rules affect them. Researchers, advocacy organizations, and journalists who would have access to standardized government data on distributional effects. Policymakers and legislators who would receive structured evidence to inform future rule revisions. The GAO, which would gain a formal mandate to conduct this type of distributional analysis. Members of the public who participate in the notice-and-comment rulemaking process and would have more information to inform their comments.
Who is hurt
Federal agencies that would bear new analytical and administrative burdens for every major rule they propose. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which would be responsible for defining key terms like "poverty line," "racial inequity," and "racial wealth gap" — a potentially contentious task. Small agencies with limited research capacity may face disproportionate compliance costs. Regulated industries could face delays in the rulemaking process if agencies require additional time to complete the required analyses. Taxpayers would bear the cost of the new analytical requirements across agencies and the GAO.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that federal rules routinely have disparate effects on low-income and minority communities that go unmeasured and unaddressed, and that requiring agencies to quantify these effects is a straightforward transparency measure. They contend that existing regulatory impact analyses under Executive Order 12866 focus primarily on aggregate economic costs and benefits, leaving distributional effects — particularly for vulnerable populations — systematically undercounted. By building this analysis into the rulemaking process, the bill would create an evidence base that allows Congress, agencies, and the public to make more informed decisions without mandating any specific policy outcome.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that requiring agencies to analyze "racial inequity" and the "racial wealth gap" — terms the bill leaves to OMB and the GAO to define — delegates significant policy-shaping authority over contested social concepts to unelected officials, potentially steering rulemaking outcomes toward race-conscious results. They contend the added analytical requirements would slow the rulemaking process, increase compliance costs across the federal government, and may produce politically driven analyses rather than objective ones, given that the definitions of key terms are discretionary. Critics may also argue the bill duplicates existing regulatory review processes without clear evidence that new mandates would improve outcomes.
Constitutional context
The bill delegates definitional authority over "racial inequity" and "racial wealth gap" to OMB and the GAO. Under the Nondelegation Doctrine (Art. I, §1) and the major questions doctrine established in West Virginia v. EPA (2022), courts may scrutinize whether Congress has provided an intelligible principle to guide agencies in defining and applying these terms, particularly if the resulting analyses are used to shape rules of vast economic significance. Post-Loper Bright (2024), courts would independently assess whether agency-defined terms stay within the statutory scope Congress intended.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (agencies and OMB) gains new analytical and definitional authority under this bill; Congress retains oversight through the GAO reporting requirement, and the public retains the ability to challenge agency analyses through the notice-and-comment process and judicial review.
Historical precedent
Executive Order 12898 (1994) required federal agencies to identify and address disproportionately high adverse environmental and health effects of federal actions on minority and low-income populations, establishing a precedent for distributional analysis in federal policymaking, though this bill would codify similar requirements in statute for the first time.