Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' major step in dismantling the regulatory state with REINS Act

When the House of Representatives last week passed Trump's "Big, Beautiful Bill," there was a poison pill for the regulatory state buried within: the long-lingering REINS (Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny) Act that proponents have been trying to send to the Oval Office for signature for 16 years. The implications of such a bureaucratic dressing-down would reverberate throughout all of U.S. industry and consumerism.

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin told Just The News, No Noise TV show that his hope is that it gets over the finish line and once it does, a cascade of other burden-easing improvements can take place. "As you look forward with the legislative agenda, there will be other opportunities to get permanent reform done, NEPA (National Environamental Policy Act) reform to make it easier to invest in America at less cost, taking less time and having more certainty," he said. 

It was originally introduced in 2009 by then-Rep. Geoff Davis, R-Ky., with the goal of increasing congressional oversight of federal agency rule-making. The current version of the bill stipulates that agency rules with an annual economic impact of $100 million or more, significant cost or price increases for consumers or industries, or substantial adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or US competitiveness, would require explicit approval from both the House and Senate via a joint resolution and then be signed by the president before taking effect.

Stopping waste before it begins

The REINS Act seeks to amend the existing Congressional Review Act (CRA), which currently allows lawmakers to void certain agency regulations after implementation. The REINS Act would reverse that process, requiring preemptive approval by Congress for major rules. 

If enacted, it would provide Congress with more direct control over major regulations with significant economic impacts by granting legislators the preemptive authority to halt the enactment of certain regulations, rather than relying on resolutions of disapproval after a rule takes effect.

A wide range of industries would likely see a tectonic shift, including energy, healthcare, pharmaceuticals, financial services, manufacturing and construction, transportation, agriculture and food safety. 

Phil Kerpen, who serves as president of American Commitment, referred to it as "unfinished business from the Tea Party era" and told Just The News that this could be the most significant aspect of the bill because it "would be a massive, positive change, and stop this pendulum from swinging wildly back and forth with the party in the White House. We'd have a lot more policy stability."

In addition to concrete steps towards regulatory overhaul and passing Trump's "Big, Beautiful Bill," if Republicans remain committed to the issues upon which they were elected, they could quite possibly remain in the majority, thus granting Trump two more years to govern without obstructionist Democratic Party constraints. 

What matters to voters: more than money

After Trump's second victorious presidential campaign, almost all the "How Trump Won" post-mortems reckoned that economic affairs were at the top of the list for most voters. 

Even before the general election, policy analysts pointed to the economy as a leading indicator of what was driving American voters' preferences. The Pew Research Center noted that after their polling, "eight-in-ten registered voters (81%) say the economy will be very important to their vote in the 2024 presidential election." 

Pew's research also found that "Voters have more confidence in Trump than Harris on economic, immigration and foreign policies. Half or more voters say they are at least somewhat confident in Trump to make good decisions in these areas, while smaller shares (45% each) say this about Harris." 

In CBS' review, the network acknowledged that "One of the most important factors in [this year's] election is the economy, specifically inflation" and cited one of their own analysts saying that throughout the pre-election polling, voters marked it as the top issue, and that Trump had always had an advantage with people who said the economy was their top concern. 

Polling? It depends on who you ask

Legacy news outlets would have Americans believe that Trump's platform, especially on issues like mass deportations, is wildly unpopular. The Nation played along with that narrative, blaring an April 29 headline that read "Trump’s Poll Numbers Have Collapsed." The admittedly anti-Trump outlet began with a salvo of invective, calling him "a historically unpopular president" and described his less-than-six-month-old tenure a "combination of scorching ineptitude and creeping authoritarianism." 

However, voter sentiment from a wider scope of polling — perhaps with a less pre-determined story to tell — reflects quite the contrary. A recent Cygnal poll found that despite Trump's first 100 days in office receiving 92% negative press coverage, 63.5% support deporting illegals from the country. Only 30.8% oppose and another 5.8 percent remain unsure. That poll queried 1,500 voters and has a margin of error of +/- 2.5%.

In direct contravention to the left's "doom and gloom" reading of the tea leaves, a new Rasmussen Reports survey released Tuesday reports that, for the first time in the poll’s nearly two-decade history that a majority of the country says the country is on the right track. 

Far from the "historically unpopular" image The Nation and others are trying to conjure as reality, the Rasmussen survey shows that nearly half of likely U.S. voters believe the country is heading in the right direction. The national telephone and online poll, conducted for the week ending May 22, 2025, found that 48% of likely voters think the nation is on the right path, while 41% still believe it is on the wrong track, Rasmussen Reports concluded. 

With a margin of error of +/-3%, even if the error favors the "wrong track" view, that still puts the country in a position where Republicans, with majorities in both Houses, and President Donald Trump in the White House, can remain in control beyond the 2026 midterms.

By no means is a Republican majority in the White House, Senate and Congress a certainty. Reuters pointed out in 2022 that over the past 80 years, midterm elections show the party in power almost always loses seats in either the House of Representatives or Senate and usually both. 

The American Presidency Project at the University of California/Santa Barbara's 2022 research concurs, summarizing the historical pattern of midterm elections and noting that "In the 22 midterm elections from 1934 to 2018, the President's party has averaged a loss of 28 House seats and four Senate seats. The president’s party gained seats in the House only three times, but gained seats in the Senate on six occasions. The president’s party has gained seats in both houses only twice."