Trump May Want To Cut Regulations But Congress Wants To Beat Him To It


Getty Image

Today, Donald Trump told business leaders he plans to cut regulations by 75% or ‘maybe more.’ It may sound bold, in some quarters, but Congress is way ahead of him. In fact, Congress wants to take control of regulations away from Trump (more specifically, the executive branch) altogether with a bill that recently cleared the House that would make it far more difficult for federal agencies to pass new regulations, and make it easier to excise them altogether.

The Basics

It’s called the REINS Act, and it’s short for Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny. The bill doesn’t necessarily mean that every single regulation passed by every agency will tie up Congress and be intricately scrutinized, though.

There are two types of rules: Major and “nonmajor.” The criteria are based on what the Government Accountability Office uses to assess whether a rule is “major” and includes:

[A]n annual cost on the economy of $100,000,000 or more, adjusted annually for inflation; a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.

In 2015, for example, 80 rules met the standard of being “major.” Going forward, Congress and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) will demand a report indicated whether a rule is major or non-major, a copy of the cost-benefit analysis, and a declaration pertaining to whether it will add or subtract jobs. The implementation of REINS doesn’t necessarily mean that those aren’t things that are considered when a new rule is proposed, of course, but it’s meant to be seen as a “get tough” on big government kind of statement that will keep forcibly Congress abreast of these actions. Congress will then have 70 days to review and pass a joint resolution. Without such an agreement, these rules won’t take effect.

In addition to oversight on these major regulations, the law also allows Congress to vote down minor regulations (though they don’t need to be approved to go into effect) and includes a provision that requires agencies to “offset” the impact of a regulation by repealing or rewriting old regulations.

Bringing REINS into effect has been a dream of a few Congress members for years. It was first introduced by Tea Party senator Jim DeMint in 2011, and a similar act in 2015 died in committee.

Why REINS Could Be Disruptive

Getty Image

Politically speaking, this is an odd bill for the GOP to pass because it, theoretically, limits the reach of the president and his cabinet (there are limited elements where a president could overrule Congress and enact a rule for national security and the like for a 90 day period) at a time when the GOP also has control of the White House. But it’s also a part of a larger effort to de-fang the regulatory state, something Trump advocated as a part of his “drain the swamp” campaign rhetoric.

But while that may sound appealing to some, including those that feel that regulators have broad powers that impact businesses and dampen their ability to thrive, there are reasons to be concerned. As the New Yorker points out, REINS opens up potentially worthwhile major regulations to flash scrutiny after months or years of complex construction. Matters that might be decided with politics or campaign contributors and lobbyists in mind.

Either the House or the Senate could easily scuttle a major new regulation—one that requires food producers to sanitize their tools, for example—simply by doing nothing.

In this hypothetical, would that inaction be triggered by the factory farm lobby and their friends in high places?

Not to defend regulation as though these rules are always worthwhile, ideologically pure, and never wasteful, but they do sometimes have a positive human impact when it comes to environmental standards, worker and consumer protections, and the like. And sometimes, the nuance required to govern can be incompatible with the political process. Because of this, the motives behind potential efforts to wipe away specific regulations is a legitimate concern for both major rules and minor ones, and for loyalists of both parties.

Another problem is that REINS encourages agencies that want to be effective to get overly narrow and specific to scoot under the wire and get things done. The vast majority of rules and regulations from the Obama administration don’t meet the criteria of being “major,” and there are thousands of them from any President in any given year. So instead of one broad regulation, this encourages agencies to pass dozens upon dozens of little teeny ones that add up to the same effect. Which could create more of a headache for watch dogs that want to enhance accountability and more of an efficiency problem for Congress — and they’re already slow enough.

One can argue the REINS Act means well, but it’s probably an imperfect solution, and the ultimate result may be a different kind of red tape as the power potentially swings from unelected regulators (who are guided by the executive branch) to politicians who may not always be guided by virtue or a firm grasp on the impact of their actions.

×