Recent legislation reintroduced in Congress has sparked renewed debate about the role of federal workplace safety regulations in America. The Nullify Occupational Safety and Health Administration Act, commonly known as the "NOSHA Act," proposes the complete elimination of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the federal agency responsible for ensuring safe and healthy working conditions across the United States since 1970.

The bill, originally introduced in 2021 and recently reintroduced by Arizona Republican Congressman Andy Biggs, consists of just two substantive sections. Its purpose is clear and direct: "The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 is repealed. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is abolished."

This straightforward proposal has generated strong reactions from both supporters and critics, revealing fundamental differences in perspectives on federal regulation, state authority, and workplace safety.

Read the full IssueVoter analysis here.

The Case for Abolishing OSHA

Proponents of the NOSHA Act, led by Congressman Biggs, argue that the federal agency represents government overreach into matters that should be handled at the state level. In his announcement of the original bill in 2021, Biggs stated: "OSHA's existence is yet another example of the federal government creating agencies to address issues that are more appropriately handled by state governments and private employers."

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

The constitutional basis for this argument centers on states' rights and limited federal powers. Biggs has emphasized his "constitutional concerns about the federal regulation of private workplaces," suggesting that the agency's authority extends beyond what the Constitution permits. He believes that "Arizona, and every other state, has the constitutional right to establish and implement their own health and safety measures, and is more than capable of doing so."

Another critique raised by NOSHA supporters relates to the perceived inflexibility of national standards. In a video explaining his stance, Biggs specifically mentioned OSHA's approach to regulating work in hot weather as an example of "one-size-fits-all" standards that disadvantage states with warmer climates. "It makes no sense to set a uniform national standard for heat," he argued, suggesting that local and state authorities would be better positioned to create appropriately tailored regulations.

The timing of the original bill's introduction in 2021 was not coincidental. It came during a period when OSHA was enforcing COVID-19 vaccination measures under the Biden Administration, which required large employers to either mandate vaccination or implement masking and testing protocols for unvaccinated workers. This policy was eventually withdrawn after being blocked by the Supreme Court.

The Case for Preserving OSHA

On the other side of the debate, organizations like the National Consumers League (NCL) have expressed strong opposition to the bill, arguing that it would endanger worker safety across the country. NCL CEO Sally Greenberg did not mince words in her assessment: "This bill would be a catastrophic step backward for worker safety in this country. Repealing OSHA would put workers at great risk by dismantling the very protections that have helped reduce workplace injuries and deaths for over 50 years."

Supporters of OSHA point to the agency's track record since its inception. When OSHA was established in 1970, approximately 14,000 workers died on the job annually. By 2023, that number had fallen to 5,283 fatal work injuries, despite a much larger workforce. According to the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, almost 700,000 lives have been saved by OSHA's safety standards since the agency was established.

David Michaels, who served as assistant secretary of labor for OSHA from 2009 to 2017, warns in Time that abolishing the agency would create "a race to the bottom" in workplace safety standards. Without federal requirements, companies might prioritize cost-cutting over worker protection, especially if their competitors do the same. "What would be the impetus to protect workers from [dangerous] exposures?" Michaels asks.

While 22 states or territories currently operate federally approved OSHA State Plans, critics of the NOSHA Act note that these exist within a federal framework. Current law requires that state plans be at least as effective as federal OSHA policies. Without this federal baseline, there's no guarantee that states would maintain robust worker protections.

Michaels notes that even with federal oversight, state implementation can sometimes fall short. He cites Arizona's own history of conflicts with federal OSHA standards, including differences in fall protection requirements for residential construction workers.

The NCL also raises concerns about equity in workplace safety, suggesting that without OSHA, "it will be the most vulnerable—low-income and minority workers—who will bear the brunt of dangerous rollbacks." The organization also highlights OSHA's role in enforcing child labor laws and protecting young workers from dangerous conditions.

What are the States Doing?

There are a number of related bills currently making their way through legislatures around the country. To see them, go to the NOSHA Act and click on SIMILAR BILLS.

Michigan's SB 0049 seeks to modernize the state's own Occupational Safety and Health Act by making technical changes and aligning civil penalties with federal standards. Oregon's HB 3778, sponsored by Republicans in this very blue state, goes further in effectively eliminating the state's independent workplace safety regulatory framework and prohibiting the adoption of rules more stringent that federal OSHA standards. Democrats in red Kentucky ironically aim to do something similar with HB 803 which repeals safety and health standards that were previously capped at federal levels and included an exemption for public employees. Nebraska attempts to remove administrative burdens for employers with LB 397 which eliminates provisions related to workplace safety committees, effectively removing the state's existing framework for proactive workplace safety oversight and consultation and eliminating state-level workplace safety resources.

Finding Common Ground?

The debate over OSHA's future reflects broader political discussions about federalism, regulation, and the proper role of government in protecting citizens. While the NOSHA Act has been reintroduced, it currently lacks cosponsors, suggesting limited congressional support at present.

Some observers might wonder if there's middle ground to be found – perhaps reforms that address concerns about regulatory overreach while maintaining essential protections for worker safety. Could more flexible implementation of standards address Biggs' concerns about "one-size-fits-all" approaches without abolishing the agency entirely?

For now, the NOSHA Act represents one position in an ongoing national conversation about regulation, federalism, and the balance between worker protection and business autonomy. As we continue this conversation, the experiences and safety of American workers hang in the balance.

About BillTrack50 – BillTrack50 offers free tools for citizens to easily research legislators and bills across all 50 states and Congress. BillTrack50 also offers professional tools to help organizations with ongoing legislative and regulatory tracking, as well as easy ways to share information both internally and with the public.

IssueVoter is a nonpartisan, nonprofit online platform dedicated to giving everyone a voice in our democracy. As part of their service, they summarize important bills passing through Congress and set out the opinions for and against the legislation, helping us to better understand the issues. BillTrack50 is delighted to partner with IssueVoter and we link to their analysis from relevant bills. Look for the IssueVoter link at the top of the page:

IssueVoter Bill of the Month (March 2025): Should the Occupational Safety And Health Administration Be Abolish was first published on BillTrack50, and was republished with permission.

Stephen Rogers is the “data wrangler” at BillTrack50. He previously worked on policy in several government departments.