Download this commentary (PDF)
In brief...
In the first 100 days of the second Trump administration, both Congress and the White House have employed standard tools to enact quick deregulatory accomplishments.
A prominent theme in the first 100 days of the second Trump administration is deregulation. This is not a surprise: extensive deregulation was one of President Trump’s key promises on the campaign trail. This commentary focuses on two main tools the administration is using to fulfill that promise: partnering with Congress to deregulate through the Congressional Review Act (CRA), and issuing executive orders requiring deregulation across the government. Both the CRA and executive orders are commonly used at the beginning of presidential administrations, particularly in the most recent transitions. The ways Congress and President Trump are using these tools, however, are novel.
Congress has applied the CRA to certain regulatory actions that key legislative arbiters have not traditionally considered rules. At the same time, the president has issued executive orders that direct agencies to forgo the traditional notice-and-comment workflow in favor of expedited procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act’s “good cause exception.” These actions exemplify the novel ways in which Congress and the president aim to pursue their broad regulatory policy goals.
Congressional Review Act
Congress has used the CRA extensively this spring. As of Day 100 (April 29, 2025), members of the 119th Congress introduced 77 resolutions of disapproval targeting 45 unique regulations issued during the last few months of the Biden administration. So far, only three of those resolutions have become law, with six more waiting for the president’s signature. By this point at the beginning of the first Trump administration, the 115th Congress had introduced 63 resolutions of disapproval, 14 of which had been signed into law. While the 119th Congress has passed many of these resolutions along predominantly party lines, one resolution targeting an Internal Revenue Service rule regulating digital asset sales garnered notable bipartisan support: the resolution passed with 76 Democratic “aye” votes in the House and 17 Democratic “ayes” in the Senate.
Three other bipartisan resolutions reflect a novel use of the CRA. Lawmakers in both the House and the Senate have introduced resolutions of disapproval to overturn three Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) waivers that grant California the ability to issue environmental regulations that are more stringent than federal regulations pursuant to the Clean Air Act, despite determinations from the Government Accountability Office and the Senate Parliamentarian that these waivers are not “rules,” for the purposes of the CRA. On days 101 and 102, the House passed all of the resolutions on California EPA waivers. These resolutions all passed with some bipartisan support—including 35 Democratic “aye” votes on one of the resolutions.
Executive Orders
Farther down Pennsylvania Avenue, the White House has similarly pursued novel pathways for deregulation. Most notably, President Trump issued a presidential memorandum titled “Directing the Repeal of Unlawful Regulations” on April 9 that directs agencies to implement Executive Order 14219, “Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ Deregulatory Initiative.” The memorandum instructs agencies to identify and begin to repeal regulations that may be unlawful on the basis of ten recent Supreme Court decisions, including last year’s blockbuster cases Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo andSEC v. Jarkesy. Normally, agencies must undergo a new round of notice-and-comment rulemaking to repeal regulations. However, the memo directs agencies to use the APA’s good cause exception to repeal rules quickly without an initial comment period.
The good cause exception states that agencies do not need to follow the standard notice-and-comment procedures when those procedures “are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Historically, this exception has been used during national crises, such as the periods following the September 11 terror attacks and during the COVID-19 pandemic, or for mundane updates that are unlikely to generate adverse comments. Using the good cause exception to justify broad deregulation on the basis of Supreme Court decisions is not a standard use of the exception, and courts have historically interpreted the good cause exception narrowly.
When regulating through the good cause exception, agencies tend to issue interim final rules (IFRs) or direct final rules (DFRs). When published, agencies both begin to implement and accept comments on the rule. For IFRs, agencies are supposed to issue a true final rule after the fact to incorporate public input. For DFRs, agencies may continue with the rule as published if they receive no adverse comments. If they do receive negative comments, however, agencies must then go through the full notice-and-comment process. As of writing, agencies have not yet repealed regulations pursuant to the memorandum and Executive Order 14219, and it is unclear if agencies will repeal these rules through IFRs and DFRs or will bypass notice-and-comment altogether before submitting a final rule to the Federal Register. Another executive order may provide a clue, however.
In another example of presidentially-directed deregulation in the first 100 days, Executive Order 14264, “Maintaining Acceptable Water Pressure in Showerheads,” directed the Department of Energy to repeal the definition of showerhead without notice-and-comment “because I am ordering the repeal.” In reply, the agency chose to issue the repeal as a final rule, without notice-and-comment. While this executive order did not invoke the good cause exception, it raises the question of whether agencies will follow the proper process of IFRs and DFRs going forward.
Together, Congress and the administration are pursuing a variety of deregulatory options. While CRA resolutions are a surefire way to take regulations off the books, deregulation pursuant to the president’s executive orders will certainly be challenged in court.