# 119-s-3210: EXPERTS Act of 2025

119-s-3210, EXPERTS Act of 2025, is a 119th Congress bill sponsored by Sen. Warren, Elizabeth [D-MA] (D-MA); status introduced; PRIA reads it as touching household money (as of 2026-04-23).

- Canonical: https://policyrisk.com/legislation/119-s-3210
- As of: 2026-04-23
- Plain-text twin of the page above; the HTML and this file carry the same facts.

## Facts
- Bill: 119-s-3210
- Congress: 119
- Title: EXPERTS Act of 2025
- Status: introduced
- Introduced: 2025-11-19
- Sponsor: Sen. Warren, Elizabeth [D-MA] (D-MA)
- Cosponsors: 12
- Policy area: unknown
- Touches household money: yes
- Last recorded action: 2026-04-23

## Summary

**Tight new disclosure and transparency rules for studies used in federal rulemaking.** This bill would force anyone submitting scientific, economic, or technical research to reveal funding, reviewers, and financial ties and would make most studies publicly available on agency dockets. - Public commenters and researchers would have to disclose funders, amounts, reviewer identities, and financial relationships for submitted studies. Agencies could exclude or disregard submissions that fail these rules and must post nonexempt studies on the public docket. Conflicts are defined partly by at least 10 percent funding from an interested entity. - Agencies and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs would face new timing and transparency steps. The Office would have 60 days to review significant rules with one 30-day extension allowed. Agencies must publish any changes between drafts provided to the Office and texts in proposed and final notices, explain withdrawn rules, expand rapid public notice, and respond to petitions with 100,000+ signatures within 60 days. - Regulated entities and public companies would face tougher penalties and filing rules. SEC-reporting companies that knowingly submit materially false information could face minimum civil fines of $250,000 for a first violation and $1,000,000 for repeats. The bill also redirects negotiated rulemaking toward government-to-government talks and alters many statutes to limit private-party negotiated processes.

## Cosponsors (12)

- Sen. Welch, Peter [D-VT] (D-VT), 2025-11-19T00:00:00.000Z
- Sen. Van Hollen, Chris [D-MD] (D-MD), 2025-11-19T00:00:00.000Z
- Sen. Schiff, Adam B. [D-CA] (D-CA), 2025-11-19T00:00:00.000Z
- Sen. Sanders, Bernard [I-VT] (I-VT), 2025-11-19T00:00:00.000Z
- Sen. Blumenthal, Richard [D-CT] (D-CT), 2025-11-19T00:00:00.000Z
- Sen. Wyden, Ron [D-OR] (D-OR), 2025-11-19T00:00:00.000Z
- Sen. Booker, Cory A. [D-NJ] (D-NJ), 2025-11-19T00:00:00.000Z
- Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR] (D-OR), 2025-11-19T00:00:00.000Z
- Sen. Hirono, Mazie K. [D-HI] (D-HI), 2025-11-19T00:00:00.000Z
- Sen. Luján, Ben Ray [D-NM] (D-NM), 2025-11-19T00:00:00.000Z
- Sen. Markey, Edward J. [D-MA] (D-MA), 2025-11-19T00:00:00.000Z
- Sen. Kim, Andy [D-NJ] (D-NJ), 2025-11-19T00:00:00.000Z

## Provisions PRIA read

- More public access to rulemaking: benefit, medium. If enacted, the law would create a National Public Advocate at the Office of Management and Budget. The office would help people take part in rulemaking and must do requested social equity assessments within 30 days. Agencies would make participation logs and notify interested people within two bus…
- Limits on negotiated rulemaking participants: cost, medium. If enacted, negotiated rulemaking would be limited to talks between agencies and government representatives. Private persons and residents of rural areas would no longer be formal participants. Many statutes would default to ordinary notice-and-comment rulemaking instead of negotiated rulemaking.
- New standards for writing and reviewing rules: mixed, high. If enacted, agencies doing impact analyses would have to count public benefits, including nonquantifiable benefits. Agencies must consider distributional and social equity impacts and generally favor public-benefit rules unless good cause exists. A "significant" rule would include actions likely to…
- Stricter study disclosures and penalties: mixed, medium. If enacted, people submitting studies to agencies would have to list who paid for the work and who reviewed it. Agencies could ignore submissions that miss required disclosures and may not answer them. Public companies that knowingly file false submissions could face at least $250,000 for a first v…
- Fast reinstatement of disapproved rules: mixed, low. If enacted, agencies could republish rules that Congress disapproved by joint resolution. They would be able to do this by publishing in the Federal Register during the first year after enactment. After that year, agencies must use normal notice-and-comment rulemaking.

## Related bills

- 119-s-5066: Health Equity and Accountability Act of 2026
- 119-s-3990: PrEP Access and Coverage Act of 2026
- 119-s-2823: FAMILY Act
- 119-s-51: Washington, D.C. Admission Act
- 119-s-5108: Right to IVF Act of 2026
- 119-s-1503: Equality Act

## Sources
- [119-s-3210 on Congress.gov](https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/3210)

## Related
- [119-s-5066: Health Equity and Accountability Act of 2026](https://policyrisk.com/legislation/119-s-5066)
- [119-s-3990: PrEP Access and Coverage Act of 2026](https://policyrisk.com/legislation/119-s-3990)
- [119-s-2823: FAMILY Act](https://policyrisk.com/legislation/119-s-2823)
- [119-s-51: Washington, D.C. Admission Act](https://policyrisk.com/legislation/119-s-51)
- [119-s-5108: Right to IVF Act of 2026](https://policyrisk.com/legislation/119-s-5108)
- [119-s-1503: Equality Act](https://policyrisk.com/legislation/119-s-1503)
- [All bills in Congress](https://policyrisk.com/legislation)

Source: PRIA, https://policyrisk.com/legislation/119-s-3210 (as of 2026-04-23).