EXPERTS Act of 2025

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/6145
Last Updated: November 19, 2025

Sponsored by

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

ID: J000298

Follow the money

The bill

EXPERTS Act of 2025

HR. 6145, 119th Congress β€” read as touching Pharmaceuticals.

The sponsor

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

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$130,260 raised

30 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Invalid Date

Introduced

πŸ“ Current Status

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

πŸ›οΈ

Committee Review

πŸ—³οΈ

Floor Action

βœ…

Passed Senate

πŸ›οΈ

House Review

πŸŽ‰

Passed Congress

πŸ–ŠοΈ

Presidential Action

βš–οΈ

Became Law

πŸ“š 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

Research & Innovation PolicyWater & Air Quality RegulationsFederal Budget & Appropriations
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

πŸ’° Campaign Finance Network

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

Congress 119 β€’ 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$130,260
22 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$49,100
Committees
$0
Individuals
$81,160

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
LIEBMAN, REBECCA
1 transaction
$6,660
2
HANAUER, LESLIE
1 transaction
$6,600
3
HANAUER, NICOLAS J.
1 transaction
$6,600
4
MEYER, PAULETTE
1 transaction
$6,600
5
MCCAW, NELL E
1 transaction
$6,600
6
PRESTON, ALAN
1 transaction
$6,600
7
SHER, ABBY
1 transaction
$6,300
8
FERGUSON, ELLEN L.
1 transaction
$6,000
9
LAVERY, LIAM
1 transaction
$6,000
10
CLOSE, GRACIE
1 transaction
$5,800
11
GOLDEN, BRUCE
1 transaction
$5,800
12
HAYS, LYNN
1 transaction
$5,800
13
JURVETSON, KARLA
1 transaction
$5,800

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 57 nodes and 30 connections (82 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $130,260

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

Showing top 22 donors by contribution amount

9 Orgs13 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 4 harmed.

  • βˆ’Pharmaceuticalsconfidence 0.80

    Section 9(b)(1) requires agencies to prioritize adoption of rules that provide benefits to the public, including nonquantifiable benefits, which could disadvantage pharmaceutical companies if rules increase regulatory burdens or reduce profitability. Section 9(b)(2) requires consideration of distributional effects and social equity impact, which could lead to rules that limit drug pricing or increase access requirements, negatively impacting pharmaceutical revenues.

  • Section 9(b)(1) and (b)(2) require agencies to prioritize public benefits and consider distributional effects and social equity impact in rulemaking. This could lead to regulations that increase compliance costs, limit reimbursement, or impose additional reporting requirements on hospitals and health systems, potentially reducing their profitability or increasing operational burdens.

  • βˆ’Health Insuranceconfidence 0.70

    Section 9(b)(1) and (b)(2) require agencies to prioritize public benefits and consider distributional effects and social equity impact. This could result in rules that increase regulatory oversight of health insurers, limit premium increases, or expand coverage requirements, thereby reducing profitability or increasing costs for health insurance companies.

  • Section 9(b)(1) and (b)(2) require agencies to prioritize public benefits and consider distributional effects and social equity impact. This could lead to rules that increase staffing requirements, limit reimbursement rates, or impose additional quality reporting on long-term care facilities, increasing costs and reducing profitability for operators in this sector.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Jayapal, Pramila [D-WA-7])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent β€” they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HARMS

Related Bills