02-24-2025

Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies

Executive OrderView the Original .pdf
View the Original .pdf

The 1-Minute Brief

What: Executive Order 14215 requires dozens of federal agencies previously considered independent—like the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC)—to submit all significant new rules to the White House for review and approval before they can be issued. It also centralizes control over agency budgets and legal interpretations under the President.

Money: The order has no direct Congressional Budget Office (CBO) score. However, it gives the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) power to adjust independent agencies' spending to align with presidential priorities. Expanded regulatory review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will also have administrative costs, though OIRA operates on a relatively small budget.

Your Impact: The most likely direct effect on an average American is indirect, through changes to the regulations that govern major sectors of the economy. This could alter rules related to financial products (like mortgages and investments), consumer protection from fraud, internet service providers, and workplace safety.

Status: The Executive Order was signed by the President on February 18, 2025, and became effective upon its publication in the Federal Register. It is currently facing multiple legal challenges in federal court.

What's Actually in the Bill

This executive order fundamentally changes the operational relationship between the White House and dozens of federal regulatory agencies that Congress originally established to be insulated from direct political control. It asserts that for the government to be accountable, the President must have supervisory control over the entire executive branch.

Core Provisions:

  • White House Vetting of All Major Rules: So-called "independent regulatory agencies" must submit all "significant regulatory actions" to the White House's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review before publication. This requirement was previously applied only to cabinet-level executive departments. Agencies must begin compliance within 60 days.
  • Presidential Control Over Agency Budgets: The Director of the OMB is directed to review independent agencies' spending and adjust their funding apportionments to "advance the President's policies and priorities." This can include prohibiting spending on specific activities.
  • Centralized Legal Authority: The order states that legal interpretations from the President and the Attorney General are "controlling on all employees" in the executive branch. Agency staff are forbidden from advancing a legal position—in regulations, guidance, or in court—that contradicts the White House's view, unless authorized.
  • Embedded White House Liaisons: Each independent agency must create a new senior-level position (Grade 15 of the General Schedule) called a "White House Liaison" to ensure coordination with the administration.

Stated Purpose (from the Sponsors):

The order states that it is designed to increase accountability and provide for a more unified execution of federal law.

  1. The stated policy is to "ensure Presidential supervision and control of the entire executive branch" to make officials who wield executive power accountable to the President, and through him, the American people.
  2. It aims to remedy the practice of allowing independent agencies to operate with "minimal Presidential supervision," which the order claims undermines their accountability.

Key Facts:

Affected Sectors: Finance (SEC), Consumer Protection (FTC, CFPB), Communications (FCC), Labor Relations (NLRB), Campaign Finance (FEC), and Energy (FERC).
Timeline: The order took effect on February 18, 2025. Agencies were required to begin submitting regulations for review within 60 days.
Scope: The order applies to all federal "independent regulatory agencies" as defined by law (44 U.S.C. 3502(5)). It exempts the Federal Reserve's actions on monetary policy but includes its authority over financial supervision and regulation.

The Backstory: How We Got Here

Timeline of Events:

The Progressive Era and the New Deal (1880s-1930s):

As the U.S. economy grew more complex, Congress began creating expert agencies to regulate specific industries, starting with the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1887. This trend accelerated during the New Deal in the 1930s with the creation of agencies like the SEC and FCC. The core idea was to have technical experts, rather than politicians, making rules in complex areas, insulated from the political pressures of any single administration. In 1935, the Supreme Court's decision in Humphrey's Executor v. United States affirmed this structure, ruling that Congress could lawfully place limits on the president's power to fire the heads of these independent agencies.

Rise of the Unitary Executive Theory (1980s-Present):

Beginning in the Reagan administration, a legal theory known as the "unitary executive theory" gained prominence in conservative legal circles. This theory argues that Article II of the Constitution, which states "The executive Power shall be vested in a President," gives the president complete and sole authority over the entire executive branch. Proponents argue that independent agencies are a constitutional anomaly—a "headless fourth branch of government"—that wields executive power without being accountable to the elected president. For decades, presidents have sought more influence over agency rulemaking, with President Reagan first establishing a formal White House review process at OIRA for cabinet agencies, a practice continued by all subsequent administrations.

Why Now? The Political Calculus:

  • Executing a Long-Held Legal Philosophy: This executive order is the most forceful implementation to date of the unitary executive theory. It moves the theory from a legal argument into direct government policy.
  • Frustration with the Administrative State: The order responds to a long-standing criticism from some conservatives and business groups that independent agencies create burdensome regulations with little political accountability, hindering economic growth.
  • Centralizing Power: By consolidating control over rulemaking, budgets, and legal interpretation, the White House can more quickly and cohesively implement its policy agenda across the entire federal government, bypassing potential resistance from agency heads who may have different priorities or serve fixed terms.

Your Real-World Impact

The Direct Answer: This order directly affects how federal agencies operate and the industries they regulate, leading to indirect but potentially significant changes for most Americans.

What Could Change for You:

Potential Benefits:

  • Regulatory Cohesion: Supporters argue the order could lead to a more streamlined and less contradictory regulatory environment, potentially reducing compliance costs for businesses.
  • Reduced Regulatory Burden: A White House focused on deregulation could use this new review power to block or weaken rules perceived as costly, which proponents claim could lower prices for consumers and spur economic growth.
  • Increased Accountability: Proponents argue that concentrating power in the President makes the regulatory process more democratically accountable, since the President is directly elected by the people.

Possible Disruptions or Costs:

Short-term (1-2 years):

  • Regulatory Freeze or Slowdown: The new layer of White House review could create delays and uncertainty, slowing down the issuance of new rules, including those designed to address emerging consumer or safety issues.
  • Politicized Rulemaking: Critics warn that OIRA review could become a political chokepoint, where rules are judged on their alignment with a president's political agenda rather than on expert analysis or public benefit.

Long-term:

  • Erosion of Agency Expertise: Critics fear that forcing agencies to bow to White House legal and policy directives could diminish the role of scientific and technical expertise in rulemaking, particularly in areas like public health, environmental protection, and financial stability.
  • Marketplace Uncertainty: Frequent shifts in regulatory enforcement with each new administration could create instability for businesses and investors who rely on predictable rules.

Who's Most Affected:

Primary Groups: Independent federal agencies (SEC, FTC, FCC, NLRB, etc.) and the industries they regulate (finance, tech, communications, energy).
Secondary Groups: Consumer advocacy groups, environmental organizations, labor unions, and the general public, whose safety, financial security, and rights are the subject of many of these regulations.
Regional Impact: There is no specific regional focus; the impact is national.

Bottom Line: This executive order centralizes federal regulatory power in the White House, which could lead to either more efficient and accountable governance or more politicized and less expert-driven rules, depending on how that power is used.

Where the Parties Stand

Republican Position: "Restoring Accountability"

Core Stance: Generally supports the executive order as a necessary step to rein in an unaccountable "deep state" and make the government more responsive to the elected president.

Their Arguments:

  • ✓ The Constitution creates a "unitary executive," meaning the President must have authority over all agencies exercising executive power to be accountable to the voters.
  • ✓ Centralized review by the White House will reduce redundant, burdensome, and economically harmful regulations.
  • ⚠️ While supporting the principle, some conservatives may have concerns if a future president of a different party uses this expanded power to advance a more aggressive regulatory agenda.
  • ✗ They oppose the idea that agencies created by Congress can operate independently of the President's direct supervision and control.

Legislative Strategy: Defend the executive order in court and use the new process to implement the administration's policy priorities.

Democratic Position: "An Unlawful Power Grab"

Core Stance: Opposes the executive order as a dangerous overreach of presidential power that undermines the rule of law and the independence of expert agencies.

Their Arguments:

  • ✓ Independent agencies were intentionally created by Congress to be insulated from political interference, ensuring that complex rules on topics like financial markets and public safety are based on expertise, not partisanship.
  • ⚠️ They are deeply concerned that this will lead to the politicization of enforcement and rulemaking, benefiting politically connected industries at the expense of public protection.
  • ✗ They reject the expansive version of the "unitary executive theory," arguing it ignores Congress's constitutional authority to structure the government and create checks and balances.

Legislative Strategy: Challenge the executive order in court, conduct congressional oversight hearings, and introduce legislation to reaffirm and protect agency independence.

Constitutional Check

The Verdict: ⚠️ Questionable

Basis of Authority:

The executive order claims its authority from Article II of the U.S. Constitution, specifically the Vesting Clause.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 1: "[The] executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."

Constitutional Implications:

Unitary Executive Theory: The order is a direct application of this theory, which interprets the Vesting Clause to mean the President has sole and complete control over the executive branch. Under this view, any statutory independence Congress grants to an agency is an unconstitutional infringement on presidential power.
Precedent: The order runs contrary to the Supreme Court's landmark 1935 ruling in Humphrey's Executor v. United States. In that case, the Court held that Congress could constitutionally create quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial agencies and protect their leaders from being removed by the president at will. While more recent court decisions have narrowed the scope of agency independence, they have not overturned the core holding of Humphrey's Executor.
Federalism: This issue primarily concerns the separation of powers at the federal level between Congress and the President, rather than federalism (the division of power between federal and state governments).

Potential Legal Challenges:

Legal challenges are already underway, and more are expected. The primary arguments against the order are:

  1. It violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the specific statutes Congress passed to create these agencies with a degree of independence.
  2. It violates the constitutional principle of separation of powers by allowing the President to unilaterally override the structure of government established by Congress.
  3. The Democratic National Committee has filed a lawsuit arguing the order illegally undermines the bipartisan structure and independence of the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

Your Action Options

TO SUPPORT THIS BILL

5-Minute Actions:

  • Call Your Rep/Senators: Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121. "I'm a constituent from [Your City/Town] and I support the President's efforts to ensure accountability over federal agencies through Executive Order 14215."

30-Minute Deep Dive:

  • Write a Detailed Email: Contact members of the House and Senate Judiciary or Oversight Committees to express your support for presidential supervision of the administrative state.
  • Join an Organization: Groups like The Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society have long advocated for the principles behind the unitary executive theory.

TO OPPOSE THIS BILL

5-Minute Actions:

  • Call Your Rep/Senators: Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121. "I'm a constituent from [Your City/Town] and I urge [Rep./Sen. Name] to oppose Executive Order 14215 and defend the independence of our expert federal agencies."

30-Minute Deep Dive:

  • Write a Letter to the Editor: Submit a letter to your local newspaper arguing that expert agencies should be free from political interference to protect consumers, investors, and the environment.
  • Join an Organization: Advocacy groups like Public Citizen, Common Cause, and other consumer protection and good government organizations are actively opposing this executive order.