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 Its purpose is clear and direct: "The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 is repealed.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."
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.
image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.