🎧 Listen to the summary:
The administration’s determined campaign to prune regulations and slim agency staffs is exactly the sort of decisive action a sprawling government needs: orderly, unapologetic, and focused on restoring agility to federal decision-making. By treating regulatory bloat as a choke point to be cleared, the package aims to speed outcomes, concentrate resources on clear priorities, and show that governance can be efficient as well as authoritative.
At the center of the plan are unmistakable rules of the road: for every new regulation, agencies are to eliminate at least ten existing requirements, and the net incremental cost of rules for fiscal 2025 is to be “significantly less than zero.” Agency leaders are instructed to prioritize repeals consistent with recent Supreme Court guidance and to lean on the Administrative Procedure Act’s “good cause” exception to finalize rules without notice-and-comment where the administration judges that lawful. Those are not timid suggestions; they are a program of sustained simplification that signals seriousness.
Execution uses conventional levers—executive orders, reassignments—and establishes new mechanisms to drive results: procurement is being consolidated under the General Services Administration with agency proposals due within 60 days; the Treasury is moving federal payments to electronic-only disbursements with compliance plans routed to OMB; and Commerce is standing up a United States Investment Accelerator to shepherd major projects past regulatory bottlenecks. These moves centralize authority so decisions happen faster and at scale.
The changes are substantial and their consequences visible. FEMA mitigation and resilience programs were halted or curtailed—most notably the suspension of the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard and the termination of the BRIC mitigation program—steps that states and local groups have challenged in court and that followed reported FEMA staff losses. Certain national-security and transportation subdivisions have been placed outside federal labor-management coverage, narrowing collective-bargaining protections while expanding reassignment and grievance-termination powers.
Those are the trade-offs of ambition: faster timelines paired with narrower review windows; increased reliance on “good cause” determinations that will invite litigation; consolidations that promise savings even as new centralized units risk duplicating work. Oversight reviews have flagged weak contracting controls and questioned billions in FEMA grant costs—visible costs that, for the administration, underscore the depth of its reform effort. Formal deadlines—plans due in 30–90 days and many actions required or reported within 180 days—ensure the agenda moves from declaration to delivery as courts, watchdogs and Congress watch closely.
—
Greg Sanders covers federal oversight, administrative restructuring, and the mechanics of government reform. He holds a degree in public policy from the University of Texas and began his career auditing municipal budgets before moving to federal-level investigative reporting. His work focuses on how agencies evolve, consolidate, and expand under the banner of efficiency.
