Amendments to Executive Orders 11030, 13653, and 13673

Background

Executive Order 11030 Amendments

President Obama's Executive Order (EO) 13683 modified previous executive orders to streamline administrative processes. In particular, it refined EO 11030, which detailed the preparation and presentation of executive orders and proclamations. Originally issued during the Kennedy administration, EO 11030 had become outdated in certain areas, necessitating updates to reflect contemporary governmental needs. One key change was the adjustment of the language and formatting guidelines for executive orders, ensuring clarity and standardization in government documents. This facilitated more efficient management of presidential directives by allowing for digital submissions and reviews, thus meeting modern documentation demands.

Before its revocation, EO 13683 impacted the procedures for special proclamations, including national observance days. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) was entrusted with assigning the preparation of these proclamations to appropriate agencies, standardizing the submission process. By requiring a 60-day lead time for such proposals, the order intended to provide the President with well-prepared recommendations, facilitating more timely and organized public acknowledgments of significant events. These procedural efficiencies helped streamline documentation and improved record-keeping within the Executive Office of the President, contributing to a more coordinated approach among federal agencies in supporting presidential proclamations.

Impact on Climate Change Policy

EO 13683 also amended EO 13653, which focused on preparing the United States for climate change impacts. A notable amendment was the inclusion of the OMB alongside other senior security officials in formulating climate adaptation strategies. This broadened the scope of administrative involvement by integrating budget considerations into environmental and security planning. By modifying the council structure, the order allowed for flexible steering committees, encouraging interagency collaboration to prioritize and direct climate change adaptation efforts. Such collaboration was intended to enhance the resilience of federal infrastructure and services in the face of environmental challenges, emphasizing a proactive stance on climate risks.

The adjustments made by EO 13683 to climate policy frameworks indicated a commitment to addressing climate change through integrated governance and strategic oversight. Through these measures, the administration sought to embed climate resilience within federal operational and budgetary processes, marking a shift towards more comprehensive environmental policy stewardship that accounted for financial and practical implications across federal agencies.

Fair Pay and Workplaces Amendments

The order also made amendments to EO 13673, which dealt with fair pay and safe workplaces. Specifically, it clarified statutory references concerning veteran employment rights, ensuring compliance and consistency with existing federal laws. These amendments aimed to reinforce protections for veterans by addressing ambiguities within regulatory frameworks. Therefore, they intended to bolster the enforcement of workplace protections and facilitate better integration of veterans into the civilian workforce by aligning labor policies with statutory requirements.

This focus on veteran affairs through regulatory alignment demonstrated the administration's broader commitment to enhancing employment opportunities and workplace fairness. By solidifying legal definitions and responsibilities, the amendments sought to protect vulnerable worker groups, particularly Vietnam-era veterans, from discriminatory practices, enhancing labor market equity and support for veterans' transitions into civilian roles.

Reason for Revocation

Shift in Ideological Framework

Donald Trump's decision to revoke the amendments via his executive order on March 27, 2017, aligned with his administration's broader deregulatory agenda. Trump campaigned on promises to reduce federal regulations perceived as burdensome to economic growth and business operations. The revocation was emblematic of a shift towards prioritizing economic concerns over administrative and procedural rigor, reflecting a fundamental ideological departure from the regulatory emphasis of the Obama administration. Here, the emphasis was on streamlining governance by removing perceived barriers to executive efficiency.

Emphasis on Deregulation

The Trump administration consistently sought to curtail regulatory reach within the federal government, using revocations and rescissions to signal a rollback of executive-branch directives that imposed additional administrative requirements. EO 13683's amendatory nature, which involved procedural modifications and compliance verification across various sectors, was contrary to the deregulatory momentum espoused by Trump. By annulling this order, the administration aimed to simplify the procedural landscape supposedly to allow for greater flexibility and promptness in executive actions.

Climate Change Perspectives

Revocation of this executive order was also consistent with the Trump administration's skepticism towards climate change policy. By disentangling OMB's involvement in climate-related governance, the administration reduced federal oversight in climate strategies—a move coherent with broader policy shifts, including withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. This reflected an ideological approach that downplayed federal environmental intervention, favoring instead a vision of energy independence centered around traditional energy industries.

Labor and Employment Policy Realignment

Furthermore, in altering labor-related protections, the revocation mirrored Trump's broader skepticism toward federally driven labor mandates. His administration often contended that such directives stifled business growth by imposing restrictive compliance burdens, especially on small businesses. In effect, nullifying the amendments to EO 13673 aimed to relax these compliance measures, albeit at the risk of attenuating statutory protections for vulnerable workers, including veterans. This repositioning underscored a paradigm shift toward minimizing federal influence over labor markets in pursuit of perceived economic benefits.

Winners

Business Interests and Corporations

With reduced federal oversight, businesses potentially benefited from the revocation of EO 13683, particularly large corporations and small enterprises wary of complex procedural demands. By removing mandates like the 60-day submission requirement for special proclamations and task force frameworks, businesses faced fewer compliance pressures associated with national recognitions or observances that might have significant organizational impacts. In sectors sensitive to federal proclamations, this facilitated strategic operations without anticipating procedural delays.

Energy Sector and Traditional Industries

The decision to minimize climate change directives most directly favored traditional energy industries. By uncoupling climate governance from financial oversight entities like the OMB, the oil, coal, and gas sectors faced fewer holistic adaptation strategies that might hinder their operational paradigms. These industries, often bearing the brunt of stringent regulatory landscapes, welcomed relaxed government demands alongside broader energy policy alignments under the Trump administration that favored economic incentives over ecological mandates.

Proponents of Deregulation

Proponents of deregulation, particularly lobbyists and political actors advocating for a leaner federal government, viewed the revocation positively. By scaling back procedural intricacies imposed by prior executive amendments, they aligned federal operational frameworks with a broader vision of loosened government constraints. This ideological victory emphasized a systematic push to untangle federal apparatus from complex oversight concerns to catalyze private sector growth and flexibility in policy implementations.

Losers

Environmental Advocates

Environmental advocacy groups situated to promote climate resilience and adaptation strategies faced significant setbacks with the revocation. Removing structured climate oversight impeded the momentum for developing comprehensive national environmental strategies, particularly those concerned with integrating fiscal considerations into climate policy. The revocation signified a muted federal response to climate change, diminishing coordinated efforts crucial for advancing environmental sustainability agendas.

Vulnerable Worker Populations

The enhanced uncertainty surrounding labor and employment protections, particularly those concerning veterans, adversely impacted worker advocacy groups and vulnerable labor segments. By rolling back clarifying amendments in labor-related EOs, protections for workers facing challenging transitions or historical discriminations became diluted. Veterans, specifically, faced a less rigid enforcement landscape, complicating the assurance of regulatory protections designed to uphold equitable labor standards across federal contracts.

Governmental Efficiency Proponents

The rollback of procedural improvements exemplified by EO 13683 also hampered efforts towards governmental efficiency among stakeholders advocating for robust public sector operations. By abandoning structured approaches to climate change task force operations and proclamation preparations, the executive office potentially risked reverting to inefficiencies characteristic of unstandardized processes. Proponents of technocratic improvements and procedural rigor faced setbacks as governmental processes slipped away from disciplined safeguard mechanisms towards more ad hoc management styles.