Evaluating and Improving the Utility of Federal Advisory Committees

Background

The executive order enacted by President Trump in 2019 sought to streamline and evaluate the utility of federal advisory committees by mandating that agencies terminate at least one-third of their advisory committees. Initially, this directive led agencies to reassess existing committees, which subsequently resulted in the disbanding of several panels. The stated goal was to eliminate unnecessary bureaucratic structures and reduce government spending by discarding committees deemed obsolete or too costly relative to their utility. These cost-cutting measures were aligned with the administration's broader agenda of deregulation and efficiency.

Furthermore, the executive order impacted regulatory practice as agencies had to justify the continuation or establishment of new advisory committees. Under this framework, if an agency intended to form a new committee, it required a waiver from the Office of Management and Budget—a process designed to strictly limit the growth of such committees. Consequently, the federal landscape became more selective in terms of the advisory bodies operating within it, allowing only those that were considered essential under the restrictive criteria set forth. This also resulted in agencies rushing to review their active committees by the set deadline in order to meet the requirements.

Beyond the regulatory impact, the order's implementation affected social policy by limiting venues through which stakeholder input could be formally integrated into government processes. Advisory committees often include experts, industry representatives, and civilian stakeholders who provide diverse perspectives on policy plans. Reducing the number of these committees narrowed the scope for these critical discussions, potentially sidelining less politically influential voices in policy formulation. In essence, the order encouraged a streamlined and possibly less inclusive advisory structure.

Reason for Revocation

The revocation of this executive order by President Biden signified a shift towards a more inclusive approach to federal advisory functions. Generally, the Biden administration prioritized restoring traditional governance practices and increasing participation from diverse groups in policymaking processes. This move can be seen as a pivot back to an emphasis on scientific integrity, expert input, and broader public consultation, all of which were principles seen as undermined by the previous administration's executive order.

Moreover, the decision to revoke comes within the context of addressing complex and multifaceted challenges such as climate change, public health, and technological innovation, all of which require comprehensive expert consultations. The Biden administration recognized that eliminating advisory committees without adequate cause could disproportionately reduce valuable scientific and expert input crucial for informed governmental decisions. This philosophy resonates with a broader ideology advocating for evidence-based policymaking.

Revocation also aligned with a strategy to counteract what was perceived as an overarching effort to shrink government intervention and presence in social affairs during the previous presidency. By restoring the capacity for agencies to establish and maintain advisory committees without the overbearing requirement of waivers, the administration sought to encourage a more elaborate dialogue between the government and other sectors. This preference represented a significant move back towards traditional governance norms that encourage agency feedback mechanisms.

The timing of the revocation, on the first day of Biden's presidency, symbolized the immediate commitment to reversing the Trump-era policy approach and reinstating a governance framework that emphasized transparency, inclusivity, and expert-driven decision-making. This was part of a larger portfolio of swift executive actions addressed at impacting agency structure and policy preferences under the new administration.

Winners

Research institutions and the scientific community are among the immediate beneficiaries of the revocation. Academic and research stakeholders often participate in federal advisory committees, which are crucial platforms for providing scientific and technical advice to government agencies. Their involvement is essential for promoting evidence-based policy and ensuring that recommendations for regulations and guidelines are grounded in robust scientific research. Removing restrictions on the creation and continuation of these committees likely resulted in increased opportunities for expert participation from these groups.

Environmentally-focused organizations and climate action groups also gained from revocation. Through restored advisory practices, these organizations could influence policy more directly, particularly on climate change and environmental protection, periods that require specialized knowledge. By fostering extensive advisory engagement, the government could better integrate these critical perspectives, thus ensuring that sustainability considerations remain at the forefront of policy development.

The general public also stands to benefit, particularly communities that had been previously underrepresented. Advisory committees often serve as conduits for including diverse viewpoints in governmental decision-making processes. The expansion of these committees creates more opportunities for public input, enhancing the democratic nature of policy formulation. This increase in civic engagement helps address disparities and represents more interests in shaping national policies.

Losers

Those who favored a streamlined government structure, principally political factions and think tanks advocating for minimal government intervention, saw the revocation as a setback. These groups argue that a robust advisory structure can lead to increased bureaucratic inefficiency and hampered potential cost savings. The reintroduction of additional advisory committees could be perceived as reinstating unnecessary layers of government interference.

Additionally, sectors that traditionally enjoyed privileged access to policy channels without the broader scrutiny enabled by advisory structures might experience reduced influence. Under the previous order, some industries could potentially exert more influence through fewer, select advisory mechanisms and teams, facilitated by reduced oversight. They now face a landscape where a greater pool of voices and opinions are included, diminishing their singular influence.

Lastly, agencies with conservative management who preferred the simplified reporting and operational structure experienced operational adjustments as they reintegrated more comprehensive advisory capacities. This could lead to short-term disruptions as agencies balance extended advisory involvement with policy implementation efficiencies. The abrupt transition required recalibrating approaches and organizational habits to adapt to the increased presence and input of advisory committees.