Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President’s “Department of Government Efficiency” Regulatory Initiative

February 19, 2025
Presidential Actions

View Original

Action Summary

  • Purpose and Policy: Focus executive branch enforcement on regulations clearly authorized by the Constitution; dismantle the burdensome administrative state to restore the constitutional separation of powers and end Federal overreach.
  • Regulatory Review and Rescission:
    • Agency heads, in coordination with DOGE Team Leads and the OMB Director, must review all regulations to ensure legality and alignment with Administration policy.
    • Identify regulations that are unconstitutional, based on unlawful delegations of legislative power, misinterpret statutory authority, or impose undue burdens on private enterprise and other national interests.
    • Submit a classified list of these regulations to the OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within 60 days.
  • Enforcement Discretion: Agencies are directed to prioritize enforcement of regulations that strictly adhere to statutory authority and, where necessary, terminate enforcement actions that exceed constitutional limits or Administration policy.
  • Promulgation of New Regulations: New regulations must continue following the process outlined in Executive Order 12866, with additional consultation on potential regulatory actions using criteria from Section 2.
  • Implementation and Guidance: The OMB Director will issue appropriate implementation guidance; key definitions are clarified—including “Agency,” “Agency head,” “DOGE Team Lead,” “Enforcement action,” and “Regulation.”
  • Exemptions and Limitations: The order does not apply to actions related to military, national security, homeland security, foreign affairs, immigration functions, or internal employee management, as well as any other matters exempted by the OMB Director.
  • General Provisions: Contains instructions on severability and clarifies that no party gains enforceable rights against the United States, ensuring the order’s operation is consistent with existing legal authorities and appropriations.

Risks & Considerations

  • The Executive Order’s focus on rescinding or modifying regulations that are deemed unconstitutional or that impose significant costs without public benefits could lead to a reduction in regulatory oversight. This may impact research and development activities at Vanderbilt University, particularly if regulations related to research funding or compliance are affected.
  • The emphasis on de-prioritizing enforcement actions that exceed constitutional powers may result in a more lenient regulatory environment. While this could reduce administrative burdens, it may also lead to uncertainties in compliance requirements for federally funded projects.
  • The potential rescission of regulations that impede technological innovation and research could present opportunities for Vanderbilt to expand its research initiatives. However, the lack of clear statutory authority for certain regulations might create challenges in securing consistent funding and support.
  • Vanderbilt University may need to closely monitor changes in the regulatory landscape to ensure that its programs and initiatives remain compliant with evolving federal policies.

Impacted Programs

  • Vanderbilt’s Research Centers may experience changes in funding opportunities and compliance requirements, necessitating adjustments in research strategies and collaborations.
  • The Office of Sponsored Programs might need to enhance its monitoring of federal regulations to ensure continued compliance and to identify new funding opportunities arising from deregulation.
  • Vanderbilt’s Legal and Compliance Teams will play a crucial role in interpreting the implications of deregulation and ensuring that the university’s operations align with new federal guidelines.
  • The Innovation and Entrepreneurship Programs at Vanderbilt could benefit from reduced regulatory barriers, potentially fostering greater innovation and collaboration with industry partners.

Financial Impact

  • The deregulation initiative may lead to shifts in federal funding priorities, affecting the availability of grants and contracts for research and development at Vanderbilt.
  • Vanderbilt University might need to reassess its financial strategies to adapt to changes in regulatory compliance costs and funding opportunities.
  • There could be increased opportunities for securing funding for projects that align with the administration’s focus on technological innovation and economic development.
  • The potential reduction in regulatory burdens may lower administrative costs, allowing Vanderbilt to allocate more resources towards strategic initiatives and program development.

Relevance Score: 3 (The order presents moderate risks involving compliance and potential changes in funding opportunities.)

Key Actions

  • Vanderbilt’s Office of Federal Relations should monitor the development of the Unified Regulatory Agenda to identify any changes in regulations that could impact university operations, particularly those related to research and development, economic development, and technological innovation.
  • The Office of Research should assess the potential impact of rescinded or modified regulations on ongoing and future research projects. This includes evaluating how changes might affect funding opportunities and compliance requirements.
  • Vanderbilt’s Legal Affairs Office should review the implications of the executive order on university policies and procedures to ensure compliance with any new regulatory frameworks that may emerge.
  • The Department of Political Science could explore research opportunities related to the effects of deregulation on public policy and governance, providing insights that could inform university strategy and public discourse.

Opportunities

  • The executive order’s focus on reducing regulatory burdens presents an opportunity for Vanderbilt’s Innovation Center to expand its initiatives in technological innovation and entrepreneurship, potentially benefiting from a more favorable regulatory environment.
  • By engaging with policymakers and participating in discussions about regulatory changes, Vanderbilt can position itself as a thought leader in the national conversation on governance and regulatory efficiency.

Relevance Score: 3 (Some adjustments are needed to processes or procedures to align with potential regulatory changes.)

Average Relevance Score: 3.6

Timeline for Implementation

  • Within 60 days of February 19, 2025 – Agency heads are required to review and identify specified classes of regulations, and submit the resulting list to the Administrator of OIRA.

Relevance Score: 3

Impacted Government Organizations

  • Office of Management and Budget (OMB): Tasked with issuing implementation guidance and coordinating the review process, ensuring that agency reviews align with Administration policy.
  • Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA): Responsible for consulting with agency heads to develop a Unified Regulatory Agenda and for receiving the list of regulations identified for rescission or modification.
  • Department of Justice (DOJ) – Attorney General: Consulted to help identify and assess regulations that may be unconstitutional or exceed the statutory authority of the Federal Government.
  • All Non-Exempt Federal Agencies: Every agency (except those expressly exempted, such as military, national security, homeland security, foreign affairs, immigration-related functions, and internal employee management) is directed to review and potentially terminate or modify regulations, with agency heads and their DOGE Team Leads playing a key role.

Relevance Score: 5 (Directive applies broadly across a wide spectrum of executive agencies, effectively impacting almost the entire non-exempt federal government.)

Responsible Officials

  • Agency Heads – Charged with reviewing regulations for constitutional consistency, directing enforcement actions, and coordinating with other officials.
  • DOGE Team Leads – Required to work with agency heads in assessing and reviewing regulatory actions.
  • Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) – Tasked with receiving and consolidating regulatory review lists and consulting with agency heads to develop a Unified Regulatory Agenda.
  • Director of the Office of Management and Budget – Responsible for issuing guidance and coordinating with agency heads and DOGE Team Leads on regulatory matters.
  • Attorney General – Consulted as appropriate to review constitutional issues associated with regulations.

Relevance Score: 4 (Directives affect agency heads and senior officials who are key to national policy execution.)

You might also like
Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers
Continuance of Certain Federal Advisory Committees
Progress on the Situation at Our Southern Border
Military Mission for Sealing the Southern Border of the United States and Repelling Invasions
Declaring A National Emergency At The Southern Border Of The United States
Adjusting Imports Of Medium- And Heavy-Duty Vehicles, Medium- And Heavy-Duty Vehicle Parts, And Buses Into The United States