Fact check: How many times has Congress used the Congressional Review Act to override a law since 1996?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, the Congressional Review Act (CRA) has been used successfully on at least 20 occasions since its enactment in 1996. The data shows a clear pattern of increased usage during periods of divided government or party transitions:

• Between 1996-2017: The CRA was used only once during this 21-year period ^[1]
• 2017: Congress passed 14 CRA resolutions that repealed Obama Administration rules with estimated costs of $3.7 billion ^[2]
• 2025: Six CRA resolutions of disapproval have been passed into law or are likely to become law, repealing Biden-era rules with estimated costs of $1.4 billion ^[2]

The analyses reveal that the CRA has become a more frequently used tool in recent years, particularly when there are changes in presidential administration and party control of Congress.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks several important contextual elements that would provide a more complete understanding:

• Political timing: The analyses suggest the CRA is primarily used as a partisan tool during transitions between administrations of different parties, rather than as a regular oversight mechanism ^[2]
• Economic impact: The financial implications are substantial - the 2017 repeals affected $3.7 billion in regulatory costs, while 2025 repeals target $1.4 billion ^[2]
• Specific regulatory targets: Recent usage has focused on environmental regulations, with the Senate specifically targeting Biden Administration EPA rules ^[3]
• Procedural advantages: The CRA provides unique benefits to Congress, including expedited procedures and the ability to prevent agencies from reissuing substantially similar rules, making it an attractive tool for regulatory rollback ^[4]

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question appears neutral and factual, seeking specific numerical information. However, it may inadvertently obscure important context:

• Framing as "override": The question uses the term "override a law" which could be misleading, as the CRA is used to disapprove agency regulations, not laws passed by Congress
• Incomplete scope: By focusing solely on the numerical count, the question doesn't capture the dramatic shift in usage patterns - from virtually unused (1 time in 21 years) to a regular partisan tool (20 times in recent years)
• Missing temporal context: The question doesn't acknowledge that the vast majority of CRA usage has occurred in just two specific time periods (2017 and 2025), making the overall count potentially misleading about its regular usage

The analyses suggest that while the question seeks factual information, a complete answer requires understanding the CRA's evolution from a rarely-used oversight tool to a strategic weapon for regulatory rollback during periods of political transition.