Continuance of Certain Federal Advisory Committees

Overview

Executive Order 13889, signed by President Donald Trump on September 27, 2019, extends the existence of numerous federal advisory committees until September 30, 2021. These committees perform various governmental functions, ranging from the preservation of historical sites to advising on scientific, economic, and security matters. The order aims to ensure the continuity and stability of these advisory bodies, allowing them to continue providing insights and recommendations to federal agencies on both national and international issues.

Federal advisory committees are vital for connecting the government with expertise and perspectives from private sector and civil society actors. The extension of their tenure highlights the administration’s recognition of the importance of maintaining informed dialogue across sectors. Such committees facilitate expert input into public policymaking, especially in specialized areas demanding advanced knowledge like science, technology, and economic development.

This Executive Order supersedes certain sections of a previous order, EO 13811, which had also extended the operation of related advisory committees. In doing so, EO 13889 preserves the administration's prerogative to assign advisory roles to expert bodies while possibly restructuring oversight mechanisms when deemed necessary. This adjustment ensures that the committees remain well-aligned with contemporary priorities and the constantly evolving federal policy landscape.

Legal and Policy Implications

The issuance of Executive Order 13889 adheres to the structures established by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which governs the creation and functioning of federal advisory committees. By extending the duration of these committees, the EO aligns with statutory requirements, including mandates for transparency, balanced membership, and periodic review of the committees' functions.

Section 2 of the order delegates administrative responsibilities concerning these committees to the heads of designated departments and agencies. This decentralization of oversight could enhance operational efficiency through clearer lines of responsibility, though it may also raise concerns about consistency and accountability in administering diverse advisory functions across several federal departments.

The order indirectly illuminates the Trump administration's policy priorities, focusing on sectors such as national security, science, health, and economic collaboration. By extending these particular committees, the administration signals its ongoing commitment to sectors considered vital to the United States' national interests, while delineating which areas will continue to benefit from focused expert input.

One significant policy aspect is the EO's approach to continuity, reflecting a strategic aim to support advisory bodies without necessitating new executive or legislative action biennially. This could imply a long-term commitment from the administration towards specific policy areas, suggesting these sectors' perceived importance and stability over time.

The supersession of sections from EO 13811 demonstrates the administration's capacity and readiness to update and refine the advisory committee framework as needs evolve. This action underscores the dynamic nature of policy advisory structures and their alignment with ongoing administrative objectives.

Who Benefits

Federal agencies and departments affiliated with each of these advisory committees are the primary beneficiaries of Executive Order 13889. They gain from continued access to expert advice and recommendations that can bolster decision-making processes, inform policy proposals, and enhance programmatic initiatives. The Department of Homeland Security, for example, benefits from ongoing input on telecommunications pertaining to national security.

Specific industries and sectors also gain from the continued existence of these committees, especially those that are heavily regulated or reliant on federal guidance. Sectors related to science and technology find significant value in the ongoing operation of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, which provides pivotal input on advancements and regulatory considerations.

Communities served by the advisory committees' missions, such as people with disabilities or individuals living with HIV/AIDS, benefit from the sustained focus on issues pertinent to their needs. The continued function of the President's Committee for People with Intellectual Disabilities and the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS exemplifies the administration's commitment to addressing these populations’ concerns through dedicated expert input.

Environmental advocacy organizations and educational excellence-oriented groups also stand to gain from the prolonged timeframe of these advisory entities. Such organizations often engage with or provide insights to advisory committees, directly impacting policy dialogue and outcomes within their spheres of interest.

In the realms of trade and international cooperation, businesses involved in export activities or international labor benefit from the extended functions of advisory committees. By maintaining groups focused on export and international labor concerns, the administration sustains support for sectors integral to America's economic landscape.

Who Suffers

Although Executive Order 13889 is designed to provide advantages through extended advisory committee functions, potential downsides exist for groups critical of the committees' effectiveness. For instance, stakeholders advocating for reduced governmental advisory engagement may view the order as a needless continuation of what they see as redundant or ineffective entities.

Additionally, there may be frustration among organizations or individuals whose interests fall outside the remit of continued committees. If certain areas are not explicitly addressed by any maintained committees, they might feel neglected, lacking formal advisory channels to influence governmental policy.

Critics might argue that some advisory committees can become entrenched, advocating for particular vested interests or outdated perspectives resistant to change. This could stymie innovation in areas that require fresh ideas or novel approaches, limiting governmental adaptability to emerging challenges.

Furthermore, the persistence of certain advisory committees could marginalize smaller or newly-formed advocacy groups that lack representation within these established bodies. Such dynamics may reinforce pre-existing power structures within policy discussions, making it difficult for novel or underrepresented voices to garner attention at the federal level.

Budgetary implications may also emerge for those focused on reducing government spending. With continued investment in these committees, critics may point to the associated costs, arguing for more streamlined or digital methods of gathering expert consultation that demand fewer resources.

Historical Context

Federal advisory committees have historically been an essential component of U.S. governance, establishing channels for expert input following the Federal Advisory Committee Act's enactment in 1972. Executive Order 13889 fits within a broader executive effort to maintain these advisory structures as crucial elements of policymaking and analysis.

The Trump administration's choice to extend these committees forms part of a larger pattern of leveraging executive power to reinforce strategic national priorities, especially in areas such as security, economic competitiveness, and public health. The decision reflects an administrative philosophy valuing expert engagement, selectively shaped by prevailing political and economic imperatives.

During Trump's presidency, economic growth, deregulation, and national security formed central themes. Extending advisory committees aligned with these priorities underscores this administration's focus. By preserving committees related to these areas, there's a strategic alignment with larger policy trends aimed at bolstering certain sectors.

While the order builds on past efforts to sustain advisory functions, it also highlights the administration's adaptability and willingness to respond to shifting priorities. The inclusion and extension of specific committees over others likely mirror a calculated strategy to fortify sectors deemed essential for national policy objectives.

It's crucial to note that this EO continues a traditional practice observed by various administrations to prolong advisory committees' lifespans, underscoring bipartisan recognition of their utility in governance. Whether under Democratic or Republican leadership, similar orders have emphasized the value of expert counsel in shaping federal decision-making processes.

Potential Controversies or Challenges

While Executive Order 13889 is fundamentally procedural and avoids direct controversy associated with committee actions, inherent challenges remain in ensuring advisory bodies' true representation and effective implementation of their recommendations without undue politicization.

A source of potential controversy lies in the selection and composition of the committees. Ensuring a diversity of membership, balance, and absence of conflicts of interest is crucial. Allegations of bias or undue influence from specific sectors may pose reputational risks that could undermine the committees' legitimacy.

Skeptics may contest the need for and efficacy of maintaining such a broad array of committees, particularly given the persistent calls for government efficiency and reduced expenditure. Issues surrounding transparency, accountability, and alignment with modern policy needs could arise, spurring further scrutiny or reform demands.

Furthermore, bipartisan divisions might arise regarding the strategic priorities reflected by the choice to extend specific committees. Debates could emerge concerning which policy areas require emphasis and advisory input, leading to possible congressional pushback or competing executive actions in successor administrations.

Although the EO itself is unlikely to encounter significant legal challenges, disputes might emerge regarding individual committee outputs or the application of their recommendations. Ensuring agency actions derived from these committees remain compliant with overarching federal laws and regulatory frameworks will continue to be an area requiring careful oversight.