119-S-148 Policy-Beat Journalist Overton Analysis

Summary: Current Overton Window placement

- Placement: Within the GOP policy mainstream and acceptable in right‑leaning think‑tank and business circles; outside the Democratic mainstream and the historical executive‑branch guidance that has, for decades, allowed agencies to consider qualitative benefits (e.g., dignity, equity, and other non‑monetized effects) alongside monetized estimates. [6]Office of Sen. Joni Ernst — Ernst press release announcing the RED TAPE Act[7]U.S. Chamber of Commerce — U.S. Chamber Letter on Proposed OMB Circular No. A-4[8]Cato Institute — Revising Circular A‑4: Introduction[2]American Presidency Project — Executive Order 12866—Regulatory Planning and Rev…

- Why this is a departure: Since Reagan’s EO 12291 (1981) and Clinton’s EO 12866 (1993), federal guidance has expressly permitted listing and weighing benefits and costs that cannot be quantified, a posture reinforced—and expanded—by the 2023 revisions to OMB Circular A‑4. S.148 would prohibit agencies and OMB from using any non‑monetized or unquantified factor, marking a move beyond the traditional bipartisan framework. [3]National Archives — Executive Order 12291—Federal Regulation[2]American Presidency Project — Executive Order 12866—Regulatory Planning and Rev…[4]The White House (archived) — Biden-Harris Administration Releases Final Guidanc…

- Legislative status: Introduced January 17, 2025, by Sen. Joni Ernst with Sen. James Lankford as original cosponsor; referred to Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. A related House companion (H.R. 572) was introduced January 21, 2025. [1]Library of Congress — Text - S.148 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): RED TAPE Act |…[9]Library of Congress — Text - H.R. 572 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): RED TAPE Ac…

Forces shaping acceptability

Actors and narratives influencing how far the idea can move within mainstream discourse.

• Bill sponsors and messaging: Sen. Ernst frames the bill as preventing agencies from “fudging the numbers” and forcing transparency on “true costs,” language that primes skepticism toward qualitative benefits and co‑benefits. [6]Office of Sen. Joni Ernst — Ernst press release announcing the RED TAPE Act
• Executive branch posture (2025): The administration revoked the 2023 A‑4 and reinstated the 2003 version via executive action, aligning the executive with stricter monetization/older methods; S.148 would codify and go further by banning qualitative factors and enabling invalidation of rules that rely on them. [10]govinfo.gov / Federal Register — Federal Register (Feb. 6, 2025): Executive ord…[11]National Archives (G.W. Bush White House archives) — Circular A-4 (2003) – Regu…
• Business community: The U.S. Chamber urged withdrawal of the 2023 A‑4 revisions, opposing expansions that elevate distributional and non‑monetized effects; this community is likely supportive of S.148’s direction. [7]U.S. Chamber of Commerce — U.S. Chamber Letter on Proposed OMB Circular No. A-4[12]U.S. Chamber of Commerce — Chamber Joins Business Community in Submitting Comme…
• Public‑interest and labor‑aligned advocates: Public Citizen and EPI supported the 2023 A‑4 update precisely because it elevates qualitative and distributional impacts (e.g., dignity benefits), positioning S.148 as a reversal of those priorities. [13]Public Citizen — Public Citizen comment supporting revisions to Circular A-4[14]Economic Policy Institute — EPI comment on proposed Circular A-4
• Academics/policy analysts: Commentary notes that A‑4 revisions broaden analysis beyond monetization; libertarian and market‑oriented analysts (Cato/Reason) warn such expansions complicate and delay rulemaking—narratives that bolster S.148’s appeal in deregulatory circles. [8]Cato Institute — Revising Circular A‑4: Introduction[15]Reason Foundation — Reason Foundation commentary on A‑4 revisions
• Congressional stagecraft: Even as S.148 rests in HSGAC, the Small Business Committee—chaired by the sponsor—held a November 19, 2025 hearing casting deregulation as a major economic relief effort, reinforcing the bill’s narrative frame without moving the bill procedurally. [16]U.S. Senate Committee on Small Business & Entrepreneurship — Senate Small Busin…[17]U.S. Small Business Administration – Office of Advocacy — SBA Office of Advocac…
• Public opinion context: A durable majority (58%) says regulation of business is necessary, while 40% say it does more harm than good—suggesting limited mass demand for across‑the‑board deregulation, which may cap how far this proposal can move toward “popular” status. [18]Pew Research Center — Government’s scope, efficiency and role in regulating bus…

Projection: How debate or outcomes could shift the window

1. If S.148 advances: The idea that regulatory choices must rest only on monetized/quantified effects moves toward “acceptable/normal” within more venues. Adjacent ideas—like discounting or excluding non‑market benefits, curbing distributional analysis, or limiting international spillover effects—gain mainstream footing in agencies and courts, especially after Loper Bright reduced judicial deference. Expect increased litigation arguing that any qualitative consideration is ultra vires, with courts empowered to vacate rules under S.148’s judicial‑review clause. [5]Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center — Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024)
2. If S.148 stalls but drives hearings/op‑eds: The rhetoric (“hide true costs,” “net benefits as cover”) still shifts salience: agencies may pre‑emptively emphasize monetized ledgers and downplay qualitative tables to immunize rules from litigation under the 2003 A‑4 baseline, particularly while the 2025 executive actions remain in force. [10]govinfo.gov / Federal Register — Federal Register (Feb. 6, 2025): Executive ord…[11]National Archives (G.W. Bush White House archives) — Circular A-4 (2003) – Regu…
3. If S.148 is defeated decisively: The defeat would reaffirm the acceptability of including qualitative, non‑monetized impacts in RIAs (the Reagan‑to‑Biden norm), potentially re‑opening space for future administrations or Congress to restore the 2023 A‑4 features (distributional analysis, lower discount rates). However, the post‑Chevron environment still makes agencies’ qualitative reasoning more legally vulnerable. [2]American Presidency Project — Executive Order 12866—Regulatory Planning and Rev…[4]The White House (archived) — Biden-Harris Administration Releases Final Guidanc…[5]Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center — Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024)

Assessment: Net effect on the Overton Window

Key sourcing (selected)

Authoritative materials underpinning the analysis.

• Bill text and status: Congress.gov pages for S.148 and H.R. 572. [1]Library of Congress — Text - S.148 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): RED TAPE Act |…[9]Library of Congress — Text - H.R. 572 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): RED TAPE Ac…
• Executive orders and OMB guidance: EO 12291 (1981), EO 12866 (1993), EO 14094 (2023); OMB Circular A‑4 (2003) and the 2023 A‑4 revision explainer; 2025 executive action reinstating 2003 A‑4. [3]National Archives — Executive Order 12291—Federal Regulation[2]American Presidency Project — Executive Order 12866—Regulatory Planning and Rev…[19]American Presidency Project — Executive Order 14094—Modernizing Regulatory Revi…[11]National Archives (G.W. Bush White House archives) — Circular A-4 (2003) – Regu…[4]The White House (archived) — Biden-Harris Administration Releases Final Guidanc…[10]govinfo.gov / Federal Register — Federal Register (Feb. 6, 2025): Executive ord…
• Judicial context: Loper Bright (2024) overturning Chevron; Michigan v. EPA (2015) on considering costs. [5]Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center — Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024)[20]Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center — Michigan v. EPA (2015)
• Stakeholder positions: U.S. Chamber (opposed to 2023 A‑4 revisions), Public Citizen and EPI (supportive of elevating qualitative/distributional effects), libertarian critiques (Cato/Reason). [7]U.S. Chamber of Commerce — U.S. Chamber Letter on Proposed OMB Circular No. A-4[12]U.S. Chamber of Commerce — Chamber Joins Business Community in Submitting Comme…[13]Public Citizen — Public Citizen comment supporting revisions to Circular A-4[14]Economic Policy Institute — EPI comment on proposed Circular A-4[8]Cato Institute — Revising Circular A‑4: Introduction[15]Reason Foundation — Reason Foundation commentary on A‑4 revisions
• Political/committee context: Small Business Committee hearing docket and SBA Office of Advocacy testimony (Nov. 19, 2025). [16]U.S. Senate Committee on Small Business & Entrepreneurship — Senate Small Busin…[17]U.S. Small Business Administration – Office of Advocacy — SBA Office of Advocac…
• Public opinion baselines on regulation: Pew (June 2024) trendlines. [18]Pew Research Center — Government’s scope, efficiency and role in regulating bus…