Ensuring Democratic Accountability in Agency Rulemaking

Background

Before it was revoked, the executive order on Ensuring Democratic Accountability in Agency Rulemaking significantly impacted how federal agencies proposed and finalized regulations. It mandated that only senior presidential appointees could sign off on rules and initiate the rulemaking process. This effectively centralized decision-making power within the upper echelons of political appointees, emphasizing presidential oversight of administrative actions. By doing so, the order delineated clearer hierarchical lines, ostensibly reducing the influence of career officials typically perceived as having longstanding institution-specific knowledge but less direct public accountability.

This shift also led to operational adjustments within federal agencies, which needed to adjust their internal structures to comply with the new requirements. Departments were required to review and potentially reassign rulemaking authorities from career officials to senior political appointees. Agencies faced increased administrative burdens to ensure compliance with the order, as they undertook comprehensive reviews of existing rules over the past 12 years to assess adherence to the new standards.

The order's immediate effect on social policy involved controversies over the potential erosion of regulatory expertise. Critics argued that placing rulemaking in the hands of political appointees could prioritize political agendas over evidence-based policymaking. This move affected areas such as environmental regulations, healthcare policies, and consumer protections, where career officials previously exercised judicious authority based on cumulative expertise, potentially impacting the balance and objectivity of policy enforcement.

Reason for Revocation

The revocation by President Joe Biden was rooted in a broader ideological shift towards restoring the integrity and expertise of federal rulemaking processes. Where the previous order aimed to consolidate political control, revoking it signaled a return to valuing the technical expertise and long-term insights that career officials offer within agencies. This change aligned with Biden's broader regulatory philosophy emphasizing robust, inclusive discussions over expedient political maneuvering.

This revocation was part of a larger strategy to undo several Trump-era executive orders perceived as limiting the executive branch's ability to respond flexibly and responsively to emergent challenges. The Biden administration viewed the restrictions on career civil servants as hampering the ability to enact informed and carefully balanced regulatory actions, especially amidst pressing issues like the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change. By returning rulemaking powers to a diverse set of agency hands, the administration believed it could foster more nuanced and scientifically founded regulations.

Biden's decision to annul the order also resonated with the administration's commitment to transparency and accountability in governance. By empowering experienced agency officials, the administration aimed to create a more participatory and transparent rulemaking process. This approach emphasizes that thorough vetting and diverse inputs are vital for crafting regulations that serve broad interests equitably and effectively rather than narrowing focus to directives instigated solely by political motivations.

The ideological shift was also reflective of the administration's emphasis on rebuilding trust in federal institutions, demonstrating that they operate independently of shifting political winds, acting instead on objective evidence and public welfare. In short, Biden's revocation aligned with a commitment to ensuring governance systems reflect competence, stability, and public trust, rather than centralized executive control.

Winners

Career civil servants in federal agencies were among the primary beneficiaries of the revocation. The annulment of the prior order reinstated their influence over rulemaking processes, allowing their expertise and institutional knowledge to directly impact regulatory actions. This change was crucial for ensuring that rules are informed by long-term insights and technical proficiency inherent in career officials’ roles, which can lead to well-rounded and effective policymaking.

The revocation also benefitted advocacy groups and organizations that champion evidence-based policy. With the reinstatement of career officials' authorities, these groups could expect more stable and research-driven regulations in areas like environmental protection and public health. Consequently, this would enhance the influence of scientific and expert input, crucial for crafting policies that effectively address complex issues like climate change and healthcare reform.

Consumer advocacy groups and the general public stood to gain from the increased likelihood of balanced and equitable regulations resulting from a return to more diverse and participatory rulemaking processes. The inclusion of a broader range of voices and a more thorough vetting process signified an opportunity for crafting policies that better reflect societal needs and interests, emphasizing accountability and democratic involvement.

Losers

Political appointees and those seeking streamlined, executive-driven regulatory action may have viewed the revocation as a setback. The prior order allowed appointees to exert direct control over the rulemaking process, streamlining decisions in line with presidential priorities. This centralized approach streamlined regulation alignment with specific political goals but deprived them of this direct influence, potentially slowing the enactment of politically motivated changes.

Industries benefitting from rapid deregulation under the previous administration might have perceived the revocation negatively. By returning authority to career officials, rulemaking processes would likely involve more scrutiny and longer review periods, potentially slowing down or complicating the rollback of regulations these industries deemed burdensome. This shift could particularly impact sectors such as fossil fuels and financial services, which often face rigorous regulation based on comprehensive reviews highlighting social implications.

Furthermore, the swift revocation highlights a broader instability for those relying on regulatory predictability. Rapid policy oscillations as administrations shift complicate long-term planning and strategy for companies, particularly those in industries heavily impacted by regulatory measures. This scenario underscores the inherent complexity in navigating shifts in policy direction following electoral changes, amplifying uncertainty in regulatory environments.