Committee hears small-business warnings on rising regulatory costs, tariffs and uncertainty

Chairman Williams convened the House Committee on Small Business hearing to examine regulatory burdens and economic uncertainty facing small firms, with witnesses and members trading sharply different views on whether deregulation or stable, predictable regulation is the better path.

The hearing opened with remarks by Chairman Williams noting the administration’s regulatory impact: “the Biden administration has cost American businesses more than $1,800,000,000,000 in additional regulatory costs over just the last 4 years,” language repeated by several committee Republicans during questioning. Ranking Member Velázquez and other Democrats countered that regulations provide safety and fairness and that wholesale deregulation risks public harm.

Why it matters: Witnesses said new and existing regulations directly affect small employers’ costs and planning. John Arensmeyer, founder and CEO of Small Business Majority, told the committee that small businesses consistently name access to capital, healthcare and childcare as top concerns and that “the debate over regulation should not be ideological, rather it must be based on a case by case pragmatic analysis.” He added that unpredictability in trade and staffing policy is a major driver of falling small-business confidence.

Committee members focused on three recurrent themes: (1) regulatory compliance costs and paperwork hours, which witnesses and some members quantified as large and disproportionately burdensome to small firms; (2) tariff and trade uncertainty with Canada and Mexico, which multiple witnesses said is already prompting price increases and planning paralysis; and (3) agency and personnel changes at the Small Business Administration that members said are adding to uncertainty.

Examples and specifics offered at the hearing included testimony that federal rules imposed roughly $1.8 trillion in regulatory costs and 356,000,000 paperwork hours over four years, concerns about proposed or recently issued rules from EPA, HUD and other agencies, and repeated requests that agencies comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act and give small firms a stronger role in rulemaking. Several members said they will press for greater oversight and for agency leaders to testify to the committee.

Direct appeals and next steps: Republican members urged Congress to move bills such as the Prove It Act to strengthen small-business input into rulemaking and to use tools like the Congressional Review Act where appropriate. Democrats and witnesses urged targeted enforcement of existing procedures, fuller cost‑benefit analyses of rules, and protection of programs and offices that support underserved entrepreneurs, citing possible job and capital impacts if those programs are dismantled.

Ending note: Members on both sides said small firms need certainty. The hearing left the committee with competing prescriptions — deregulatory measures and new statutory constraints on agencies versus better enforcement of existing review processes and protections for small-business support programs — and bipartisan requests that agency leaders come to the committee to answer detailed questions.