EXPERTS Act of 2025

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/6145
Last Updated: November 20, 2025

Sponsored by

Rep. Jayapal, Pramila [D-WA-7]

ID: J000298

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Invalid Date

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

âś…

Passed Senate

🏛️

House Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

(sigh) Oh joy, another "reform" bill from the geniuses in Congress. Let's dissect this mess.

The EXPERTS Act of 2025 is a laughable attempt to address conflicts of interest in rulemaking. It's like trying to cure cancer with a Band-Aid. The bill requires disclosure of conflicts of interest, but only for submissions that include scientific, economic, or technical studies. How quaint.

New regulations being created or modified: Section 4 amends the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to require interested persons to disclose funding sources and financial relationships when submitting studies or research related to proposed rules. Wow, what a bold move. It's not like industries have been gaming the system for decades by funding "independent" research that just so happens to support their interests.

Affected industries and sectors: Any industry that lobbies heavily in Washington will be impacted, but let's be real, they'll find ways to exploit this toothless legislation. The bill is too narrow in scope, only applying to submissions that include scientific, economic, or technical studies. What about all the other ways industries influence rulemaking?

Compliance requirements and timelines: There are no meaningful compliance requirements or timelines. Interested persons must disclose funding sources and financial relationships, but there's no penalty for non-compliance. It's like asking a toddler to promise not to touch the cookies.

Enforcement mechanisms and penalties: Ha! Don't make me laugh. The bill relies on agencies to police themselves, which is like trusting a fox to guard the henhouse. There are no meaningful enforcement mechanisms or penalties for non-compliance.

Economic and operational impacts: This bill will have zero impact on the revolving door between industries and government agencies. It won't stop industries from funding "research" that supports their interests. It's just a PR stunt to make Congress look like they're doing something about corruption.

In conclusion, this bill is a joke. It's a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. The real disease is the corrupting influence of money in politics, and this bill doesn't even scratch the surface. (shakes head) Next patient, please.

Related Topics

Government Operations & Accountability Civil Rights & Liberties Criminal Justice & Law Enforcement Federal Budget & Appropriations State & Local Government Affairs Congressional Rules & Procedures Small Business & Entrepreneurship National Security & Intelligence Transportation & Infrastructure
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

đź’° Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Jayapal, Pramila [D-WA-7]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$98,600
21 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$49,100
Committees
$0
Individuals
$49,500

No PAC contributions found

1
FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA
2 transactions
$9,900
2
CHEROKEE NATION
2 transactions
$6,600
3
SNOQUALMIE TRIBE
2 transactions
$6,600
4
MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE
2 transactions
$6,600
5
THE TULALIP TRIBES OF WASHINGTON
2 transactions
$6,600
6
PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS
3 transactions
$6,600
7
SUQUAMISH INDIAN TRIBE
1 transaction
$3,200
8
SAMISH TYEE
2 transactions
$2,000
9
MOHEGAN TRIBE OF INDIANS OF CONNECTICUT
1 transaction
$1,000

No committee contributions found

1
ENAND, MONICA
1 transaction
$6,600
2
PILLAI, GITA
1 transaction
$6,600
3
FINKBONNER, JOE
2 transactions
$6,600
4
BLAIR, DAVID
1 transaction
$3,300
5
CHAPMAN, MATT
1 transaction
$3,300
6
CIRILLO, JOAN
1 transaction
$3,300
7
DELANEY, M. QUINN
1 transaction
$3,300
8
DUFFIN, CHRIS
1 transaction
$3,300
9
NATARAJAN, SANJAY
1 transaction
$3,300
10
GOOSBY, JENCKYN
1 transaction
$3,300
11
ISAAC, LAUREN
1 transaction
$3,300
12
JOHNSON, JEFFREY
1 transaction
$3,300

Donor Network - Rep. Jayapal, Pramila [D-WA-7]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Loading...

Showing 22 nodes and 30 connections

Total contributions: $98,600

Top Donors - Rep. Jayapal, Pramila [D-WA-7]

Showing top 21 donors by contribution amount

9 Orgs12 Individuals

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document. Higher similarity scores indicate stronger thematic connections.

Introduction

Low 56.2%
Pages: 470-472

— 437 — Environmental Protection Agency l Suspend and review the activities of EPA advisory bodies, many of which have not been authorized by Congress or lack independence, balance, and geographic and viewpoint diversity. l Retract delegations for key science and risk-assessment decisions from Assistant Administrators, regional offices, and career officials. l Eliminate the use of Title 42 hiring authority that allows ORD to spend millions in taxpayer dollars for salaries of certain employees above the civil service scale. l Announce plans to streamline and reform EPA’s poorly coordinated and managed laboratory structure. Budget: Back-to-Basics Rejection of Unauthorized or Expired Science Activities A top priority should be the immediate and consistent rejection of all EPA ORD and science activities that have not been authorized by Congress. In FY 2022, according to EPA’s opaque budgeting efforts, science and technology activ- ities totaled nearly $730 million. EPA’s FY 2023 budget request for the Office of Research and Development seeks funds for more than 1,850 employees—a dramatic increase for what is already the largest EPA office with well above 10 percent of the agency’s workforce.44 ORD conducts a wide-ranging series of science and peer review activities, some in support of regulatory programs established by our envi- ronmental laws, but often lacks authority for these specific endeavors. Several ORD offices and programs, many of which constitute unaccountable efforts to use scientific determinations to drive regulatory, enforcement, and legal decisions, should be eliminated. The Integrated Risk Information System, for example, was ostensibly designed by EPA to evaluate hazard and dose-response for certain chemicals. Despite operating since the 1980s, the program has never been authorized by Congress and often sets “safe levels” based on questionable science and below background levels, resulting in billions in economic costs. The program has been criticized by a wide variety of stakeholders: states; Congress; the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM); and the U.S. Govern- ment Accountability Office (GAO), among others. EPA has failed to implement meaningful reforms, and this unaccountable program threatens key regulatory processes as well as the integrity of Clean Air Act and TSCA implementation. Needed EPA Advisory Body Reforms EPA currently operates 21 federal advisory committees.45 These committees often play an outsized role in determining agency scientific and regulatory policy,

Introduction

Low 56.2%
Pages: 470-472

— 437 — Environmental Protection Agency l Suspend and review the activities of EPA advisory bodies, many of which have not been authorized by Congress or lack independence, balance, and geographic and viewpoint diversity. l Retract delegations for key science and risk-assessment decisions from Assistant Administrators, regional offices, and career officials. l Eliminate the use of Title 42 hiring authority that allows ORD to spend millions in taxpayer dollars for salaries of certain employees above the civil service scale. l Announce plans to streamline and reform EPA’s poorly coordinated and managed laboratory structure. Budget: Back-to-Basics Rejection of Unauthorized or Expired Science Activities A top priority should be the immediate and consistent rejection of all EPA ORD and science activities that have not been authorized by Congress. In FY 2022, according to EPA’s opaque budgeting efforts, science and technology activ- ities totaled nearly $730 million. EPA’s FY 2023 budget request for the Office of Research and Development seeks funds for more than 1,850 employees—a dramatic increase for what is already the largest EPA office with well above 10 percent of the agency’s workforce.44 ORD conducts a wide-ranging series of science and peer review activities, some in support of regulatory programs established by our envi- ronmental laws, but often lacks authority for these specific endeavors. Several ORD offices and programs, many of which constitute unaccountable efforts to use scientific determinations to drive regulatory, enforcement, and legal decisions, should be eliminated. The Integrated Risk Information System, for example, was ostensibly designed by EPA to evaluate hazard and dose-response for certain chemicals. Despite operating since the 1980s, the program has never been authorized by Congress and often sets “safe levels” based on questionable science and below background levels, resulting in billions in economic costs. The program has been criticized by a wide variety of stakeholders: states; Congress; the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM); and the U.S. Govern- ment Accountability Office (GAO), among others. EPA has failed to implement meaningful reforms, and this unaccountable program threatens key regulatory processes as well as the integrity of Clean Air Act and TSCA implementation. Needed EPA Advisory Body Reforms EPA currently operates 21 federal advisory committees.45 These committees often play an outsized role in determining agency scientific and regulatory policy, — 438 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise and their membership has too often been handpicked to achieve certain politi- cal positions. In the Biden Administration, key EPA advisory committees were purged of balanced perspectives, geographic diversity, important regulatory and private-sector experience, and state, local, and tribal expertise. Contrary to con- gressional directives and recommendations from the GAO and intergovernmental associations, these moves eviscerated historic levels of participation on key com- mittees by state, local, and tribal members from 2017 to 2020. As a result, a variety of EPA regulations lack relevant scientific perspectives, increasing the risks of economic fallout and a failure of cooperative federalism. EPA also has repeatedly disregarded legal requirements regarding the role of these advisory committees and the scope of scientific advice on key regulations.46 Needed Science Policy Reforms Instead of allowing these efforts to be misused for scaremongering risk com- munications and enforcement activities, EPA should embrace so-called citizen science and deputize the public to subject the agency’s science to greater scrutiny, especially in areas of data analysis, identification of scientific flaws, and research misconduct. In addition, EPA should: l Shift responsibility for evaluating misconduct away from its Office of Scientific Integrity, which has been overseen by environmental activists, and toward an independent body. l Work (including with Congress) to provide incentives similar to those under the False Claims Act47 for the public to identify scientific flaws and research misconduct, thereby saving taxpayers from having to bear the costs involved in expending unnecessary resources. l Avoid proprietary, black box models for key regulations. Nearly all major EPA regulations are based on nontransparent models for which the public lacks access or for which significant costs prevent the public from understanding agency analysis. l Reject precautionary default models and uncertainty factors. In the face of uncertainty around associations between certain pollutants and health or welfare endpoints, EPA’s heavy reliance on default assumptions like its low-dose, linear non-threshold model bake orders of magnitude of risk into key regulatory inputs and drive flawed and opaque decisions. Given the disproportionate economic impacts of top-down solutions, EPA should implement an approach that defaults to less restrictive regulatory outcomes.

Introduction

Low 56.0%
Pages: 494-496

— 462 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise In May 2022, documents obtained pursuant to a FOIA request revealed that NIH Director Francis Collins, NAIAD Director Anthony Fauci, and Fauci’s Deputy Director, Clifford Lane, all received royalties from pharmaceutical companies between 2009 and 2014.22 Nonprofit watchdog Open the Books estimates that from 2010 to 2020, third parties paid more than $350 million in royalties to NIH and its scientists, who are credited as coinventors. Most problematically, in the years when they received payments, Collins, Fauci, and Lane were NIH administrators, not researchers, with no plausible claim to be scientific co-discoverers. Most of the world’s other advanced science countries have stricter prohibitions on such conflicts, which helps to explain why the most significant studies on COVID treatments, on natural immunity, and on vaccine efficacy have come mostly from outside the U.S. Funding for scientific research should not be controlled by a small group of highly paid and unaccountable insiders at the NIH, many of whom stay in power for decades. The NIH monopoly on directing research should be broken. Term limits should be imposed on top career leaders at the NIH, and Congress should consider block granting NIH’s grants budget to states to fund their own scientific research. Nothing in this system would prevent several states from partnering to co-fund large research projects that require greater resources or impact larger regions. Likewise, the establishment of funding for scientific research at the state level does not preclude more modest federal funding through the National Insti- tutes of Health: The two models are not mutually exclusive. The CDC and NIH Foundations, whose boards are populated with pharma- ceutical company executives, need to be decommissioned. Private donations to these foundations—a majority of them from pharmaceutical companies—should not be permitted to influence government decisions about research funding or public health policy. Woke Policies. Under Francis Collins, NIH became so focused on the #MeToo movement that it refused to sponsor scientific conferences unless there were a cer- tain number of women panelists, which violates federal civil rights law against sex discrimination. This quota practice should be ended, and the NIH Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion, which pushes such unlawful actions, should be abolished. NIH has been at the forefront in pushing junk gender science. Instead, it should fund studies into the short-term and long-term negative effects of cross- sex interventions, including “affirmation,” puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgeries, and the likelihood of desistence if young people are given counseling that does not include medical or social interventions. CENTERS FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID SERVICES (CMS) With the goal of being a societal safety net, Medicare and Medicaid touch more American lives than does any other federal program. While they help many, they — 463 — Department of Health and Human Services operate as runaway entitlements that stifle medical innovation, encourage fraud, and impede cost containment, in addition to which their fiscal future is in peril. Both programs should be managed so that the individuals enrolled are empow- ered to make decisions for themselves and have quality options with affordable prices driven by competition and innovation. Providers who participate should retain (or have restored) the freedom to practice medicine and take care of their patients according to their patients’ unique needs. Medicare. Medicare should be reformed according to four goals and principles: l Increase Medicare beneficiaries’ control of their health care. Patients are best positioned to determine the value of health care services, working with their health care providers. They also benefit from increased choice of doctors, hospitals, and insurance plans. Access to reliable information with respect to physicians, hospitals, and insurers is therefore essential. l Reduce regulatory burdens on doctors. Doctors must be free to focus on treating patients first, not entering codes on computers, and should not be tempted to change their medical judgment based on arbitrary or illogical reimbursement incentives. l Ensure sustainability and value for beneficiaries and taxpayers. Prices are best for patients when determined by economic value rather than political power and when they are known in advance of the receipt of services. Government’s use of non-market-based methods to determine reimbursement leads to overspending on low-value services and products and underpayment for high-value services and products, stifles beneficial innovation, and because of Medicare’s size distorts payments throughout the health care system. Intermediate entities that can manage financial risk and ensure quality of care are important in transitioning to value-based care within the Medicare program. l Reduce waste, fraud, and abuse, including through the use of artificial intelligence for their detection. Regulatory Reforms. Medicare regulations restrict choice of coverage and care. The next Administration should reintroduce and restore regulations and demonstrations from the Trump Administration that were withdrawn, weakened, or never finalized by the Biden Administration, including: l The Medicare Coverage of Innovative Technologies (MCIT) rule;

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.