Providing an Order of Succession Within the Environmental Protection Agency

Background

Before its revocation, Executive Order 13737 delineated a clear order of succession within the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in instances where both the Administrator and Deputy Administrator were unable to perform their duties. This structure was particularly critical in ensuring continuity of leadership and operational stability within the Agency. As such, it helped mitigate any disruptions that could arise during transitions or emergencies by detailing who would step into leadership roles to maintain EPA's regulatory responsibilities. This directly influenced the EPA's ability to consistently enforce environmental regulations, thereby maintaining the agency's central role in protecting environmental standards.

The arrangement specified in the order reached across various high-ranking officials, including the General Counsel and various Assistant Administrators responsible for critical sectors such as air, water, and toxic substances. By doing so, it underscored the importance of specialized knowledge and experience in these fields for any individual temporarily stepping into the leadership. This emphasis on expertise resonated with the broader environmental policies of the Obama administration, which frequently relied on scientific grounding and comprehensive regulatory frameworks to shape environmental law and policy.

Operational adjustments following this executive order were notable, as it necessitated internal directives to ensure readiness of the key listed individuals to assume leadership roles if required. It triggered an internal re-examination of strategic reports and increased the focus on cross-functional training and transitional readiness among high-ranking officials. This had the effect of strengthening internal processes and further professionalizing the agency’s approach to potential succession scenarios, contributing to a more robust organizational structure and resilience in the face of emergencies.

Reason for Revocation

The revocation of this executive order in January 2017 by President Obama himself was an unusual move often interpreted as a tactical decision prepared in anticipation of the incoming administration's priorities. The change in leadership from Obama to Trump hinted at a significant shift in ideology regarding environmental policy and federal administrative operations. Revocation of the order allowed the new administration scope to define its own succession protocols, possibly aligned more closely with its regulatory philosophy.

From a strategic standpoint, the revocation can be seen as a deliberate effort to provide the incoming administration with a clean slate for setting their own operational procedures. This move might have been made acknowledging potential shifts toward less stringent environmental regulations and a downsizing of certain enforcement actions by the new leadership, as foreshadowed by Trump's campaign rhetoric emphasizing deregulation.

The timing of the revocation was crucial as it set the stage for an administration poised to push for significant reductions in the size and scope of federal government oversight, including that exercised by the EPA. The approach to environmental governance was likely anticipated to change, favoring economic interests over regulatory strictness. In this context, revamped or vacated succession plans could also facilitate a smoother integration of new personnel sympathetic to the philosophical changes anticipated under the Trump administration.

Ultimately, the decision must be contextualized within a broader shift toward prioritization of economic growth and development, often at the expense of strict environmental safeguards. The Obama administration’s final actions could be interpreted as facilitating a smoother transition, reducing potential friction points for the Trump administration to implement its agenda effectively without being constrained by predefined internal structures.

Winners

The revocation indirectly benefited particular sectors and corporations aligning more closely with the regulatory relaxation favored by President Trump. Industries such as fossil fuels, manufacturing, and chemicals, which had historically found some EPA regulations burdensome, stood to gain. By allowing a restructuring of the agency’s internal priorities and succession dynamics, companies such as ExxonMobil and Dow Chemical, which had vested interests in less stringent rules, likely viewed the developments favorably.

Additionally, the administrative freedom provided to the incoming Trump administration offered potential leverage to industries advocating for relaxed enforcement of climate-related measures. This was particularly significant for corporations dependent on more lenient emission regulations. A redefined hierarchy and order of succession could translate into leadership more aligned with easing regulatory pressures, thus facilitating industrial operations with reduced compliance overhead.

Economically, businesses poised for expansion could consider scaling operations with more confidence in a regulatory environment perceived as being more business-friendly. This shift would attract investments in sectors seeing emissions trading schemes or rigorous environmental policies as a deterrent to growth.

Losers

Conversely, environmental advocacy groups and communities reliant on strict environmental enforcement likely viewed the revocation as a loss. These groups, such as the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council, prioritized regulatory stability and rigidity to safeguard against potential environmental degradation. The revocation signaled potential for decreased oversight effectiveness, raising concerns over environmental protection continuity.

Communities vulnerable to industrial pollution, especially those located near major manufacturing hubs, faced heightened anxiety over relaxed pollution controls. The threat of weakened enforcement metrics posed risks to public health standards, often disproportionately impacting lower-income and marginalized communities traditionally underserved in environmental justice.

On an organizational level, professionals within the EPA who had aligned with a scientific and regulatory-centered approach to environmental management experienced ambiguity. The restructuring of succession planning left many uncertain about the agency’s future trajectory in a rapidly changing political landscape, potentially impacting morale and effectiveness amidst anticipated policy shifts.