In recent weeks, President Trump signed three Executive Orders (EOs) that purport to give the White House more power, authority, and oversight of the White House over federal agencies, including both executive departments and independent regulatory agencies. These executive orders are intended to give the president and his closest political aides unprecedented control over how agencies can carry out their mission. It’s an unsettling development that shows how the administration is trying to break constraints on its power.
The first EO, issued on February 18, claims White House control over independent agencies like the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) or the Federal Energy Regulatory Committee (FERC), and orders these agencies to submit all their regulatory actions to the White House Office of Management and Budget, run by director Russell Vought. The EO also insists that the President and Attorney General “provide authoritative interpretations of law.”
The second EO, issued February 19, requires federal agencies to review all their rules and regulations and “deprioritize” or “terminate” the enforcement of any regulation that the White House decides falls outside of vaguely defined Administration policy priorities.
The third EO, signed on February 26, orders federal agencies to review all their contracts and spending and “terminate or modify” contracts and grants that don’t align with Administration priorities.
Under the guise of encouraging government “efficiency” and “consistency,” these three executive orders lay out a vision of an entire government subject to the preferences of President Trump and his closest advisors. They give the White House the ultimate power in how federal agencies develop regulations, spend their money, and interpret the law, including independent regulatory agencies. If carried out, these EOs would mean arbitrary, abrupt and politically motivated changes to policies and practices across the federal government. It’s an effort to justify with formal language the kinds of disruption being wrought now by the “Department of Government Efficiency” (also known as “DOGE”), which has no formal status as an executive department, and its efforts have resulted in chaotic firings and confusion across the country.
It’s important to remember that EOs are not the law of the land. EOs are used by Offices of the President to signal an administration’s priorities. They can help shape how regulations are made or even pave the way for Congress to create new legislation, but they don’t have the same legal power as acts of Congress. And as we’re seeing with the Trump Administration, EOs can be challenged in court if they violate the Constitution or run counter to existing interpretations of the law. However, understanding these EOs is important because they show the Trump Administration’s intent and signal how its appointees will act within these federal agencies. Make no mistake, these EOs are an attack on independent science: they place the Office of the President as the final authority over independent regulatory agency decisions, which are historically made by experts in the issues they cover, and subject every current regulation, contract, or grant to political interference. Therefore, they can have very negative implications for science-based policy and decision making.
Here’s what we understand about these three EOs that purport to change agency decision-making authority and their ability to craft regulations, and what we’ll be watching for in the weeks to come.
Taking the “independent” out of “independent agencies”
Executive departments, such as the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), are led by members of the President’s cabinet, and are subject to presidential control through the regulatory review process, among other things. On the other hand, independent regulatory agencies are created by Congress and kept somewhat separate from the rest of the executive branch to prevent political interference and direct presidential oversight. Both types of federal agencies create policy based on existing law and were designed to provide expertise in and oversight over specific areas of governance.
The first independent regulatory agency was created in the late 1880’s by Congress to oversee a polarizing topic at the time–the development and regulation of the railroad industry. This established a precedent for Congress to create independent regulatory agencies that would face less political interference from any governmental branch. Most often, independent regulatory agencies are characterized by how their heads can be appointed (i.e., Presidents can only appoint and remove heads of independent regulatory agencies with Congressional approval), and the fact that, unlike at executive departments, their proposed and final regulations are not subject to the approval of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA).
Members and heads of independent regulatory agencies are required to have technical and/or scientific expertise in their respective areas, to ensure they propose policy and recommendations according to the best available evidence and in the public’s best interest. The NRC, for example,
“protects public health and safety and advances the nation’s common defense and security by enabling the safe and secure use and deployment of civilian nuclear energy technologies and radioactive materials through efficient and reliable licensing, oversight, and regulation for the benefit of society and the environment.”
Independent regulatory agencies’ protections are written in statute so that experts can make the decisions instead of being subject to undue influence from external parties, including the White House. What this means is that the decision-making authority of independent regulatory agencies such as the NRC can only be modified by Congress. But the Trump administration is trying to take direct control over how these agencies create and enforce regulations, spend money, and interpret the law. In the light of the previous Trump administration’s record of attacks on science, and the remarkable anti-science track record of the new administration’s brief tenure, it’s clear that the executive order is yet another attempted power grab.
Accountable to who?
Under the Feb. 18 executive order, any regulation created by federal agencies, whether they’re proposed or final, would have to be reviewed by the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) before being published in the Federal Register. This departs from how the regulatory process typically occurs and diminishes the scientific independence and authority of federal agencies. It also bypasses public comment periods and how they’ve been recently expanded to allow for more public participation.
As an example: the NRC can propose a new regulation on how to safely transport radioactive material based on the best available science to reduce the chance of negatively impacting public health and safety. Traditionally, the NRC would propose such a regulation and then post it to the Federal Register for a public comment period. Members of the public would have a chance to respond to the proposed regulation. After the public comment period ends, the NRC would take the public comments into account before deciding whether they want to amend, finalize, or retract the proposed regulation. If the NRC decides to finalize the regulation, they post it to the Federal Register as a Final Rule with their responses to any major public comments. After 30 days, the new regulation would take effect. President Trump’s new EOs would place the White House as a gatekeeper between federal agencies and the public. The EO states OIRA would have to approve any potential regulation before being released for public comments and before being published as a Final Rule. A process designed to be responsive to real problems in the world, with accountability to the public at large, would instead become a tool for a President’s political agenda.
The Feb. 18 executive order would apply to “all executive departments and agencies, including so-called independent agencies” based on how agencies are defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(1). According to this piece of the U.S. Code, this EO covers federal agencies categorized as executive departments, such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and HHS, but would also include independent regulatory agencies like the NRC and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Previous administrations have had some level of oversight over federal rulemaking, including through OIRA, but this EO is a major departure from precedent. Never before has a President of either party attempted to extend this level of control to independent regulatory agencies like the NRC and FERC.
This EO—by design—blurs the lines Congress originally established to protect regulatory independence. These independent regulatory agencies were created by Congress to work autonomously, with less political pressure, and have protections written in statute (meaning they can’t be revoked by an EO) to prevent the very type of political interference and overreach that this EO is proposing.
The EO also calls for the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Russell Vought, to review independent regulatory agencies’ spending and budgets to ensure they are in line with President Trump’s priorities “on an on-going basis.” Russell Vought is also being given the authority through this EO to adjust these agencies’ spending—set by Congress— “to advance the President’s policies and priorities.”
It also claims to give President Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi the final say in how the law is interpreted across federal agencies. What this means is that any employee working within the executive branch—whether they work in an executive department or an independent regulatory agency—would not be allowed to communicate or move forward any interpretation of the law that President Trump personally does not sign off on. Preceding this EO, agencies had the authority to do this on their own, with their respective Office of General Council, without Presidential oversight. The EO explicitly specifies any “issuance of regulations, guidance, and positions advanced in litigation,” which would cover any regulation that a federal agency may want to publish in the Federal Register for public comment. Given that many of the Trump Administration’s actions have been challenged in court, we are very interested in seeing how this stipulation will be enforced.
Project 2025’s wish list: rescinding regulations
The Feb. 19 EO aligns with key elements of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, co-authored by Vought and other veterans of the past Trump administration, which serves as a roadmap to dramatically reduce the power of federal agencies and increase White House control over regulations. While “DOGE” is not explicitly mentioned in Project 2025, the document outlines strategies for weakening independent agencies and rolling back environmental, labor, and public health regulations—objectives that closely mirror the directives in this EO.
First, this EO mandates each federal agency head, including heads of executive departments and independent regulatory agencies, work with Russell Vought and their “DOGE” team lead to identify a list of regulations within 60 days that they believe are unlawful, exceed the government’s power, or impose undue burdens or costs upon private and public parties. This list will be shared with OIRA, who will work with agency heads to navigate the rulemaking process. Preceding this EO, the regulatory process usually included a cost/benefit analysis to ensure that the benefits of new or amended regulations (e.g., for public health, safety, or consumer rights, for example) outweigh any costs associated with its passing and enforcement. This EO proposes bypassing these types of analyses entirely, allowing these types of changes to be made without their usual level of evidence.
Second, this EO also attempts to give heads of executive departments and independent regulatory agencies permission to “de-prioritize” any regulation they feel is unlawful or an example of government overreach. These agency heads can review whether any existing regulation within their agency is unlawful and rescind them with Russell Vought’s permission. Again, this can happen without any scientific analysis, public comment, or effort to calculate what the benefits of the regulation could be or what harms could come from rescinding it.
Third, this EO specifies that any new regulation coming out of federal agencies must follow the guidance and directives laid out in the previously explained Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies EO and include agency DOGE team leads in the regulation approval process.
Dollars and senselessness
The Feb. 26 EO seeks to put money disseminated by federal agencies under direct presidential control. Among other actions, it directs agency heads and DOGE to review any existing contract or grant within federal agencies and terminate them if they do not align with the Administration’s priorities, under the guise of reducing “waste, fraud, and abuse,” as defined by the White House. Any spending could be excluded if agency heads or their “DOGE” team leads decide to deem it necessary. The EO puts special attention on contracts and grants for educational institutions and foreign entities. This EO also halts the review process for new contracts and grants while agency heads and DOGE assess agencies’ contracting policies, procedures, and personnel.
This EO also calls for the creation of centralized approval systems, where any new grant, contract payment, or request for “non-essential” spending (like travel for conferences) must be submitted with written justification for approval by the agency head.
How these EOs can impact science in the federal government
Since being back in office, the Trump Administration has ordered federal agencies to comply with numerous anti-science actions, such as ordering federal agencies to remove “climate change” from their websites and documentation and halting federal research and communication to ensure they conform to the administration’s ideological values. President Trump and Congress have also appointed multiple anti-science advocates and people with deep conflicts of interest in positions of power within federal agencies. These appointees would have a massive influence on what regulations are created and cut under these new EOs. To what extent will these new EOs impact how federal agencies can operate? Will they still be able to use the best available science to propose and enforce regulations that are in the best interests of the environment and public health? Or will regulations be cut to score ideological points and pad the profits of favored corporate interests?
Ways we can advocate for science together
These executive orders draw a scary picture of what this administration is hoping to achieve, but they can’t overrule the law, and the rest of us can continue to advocate for science-informed policy. Here are a couple of ways that you can help:
- Send an email to your members of Congress using this link and ask them to co-sponsor the Scientific Integrity (SI) Act. The SI Act, if passed, would help prevent the kind of political interference and overreach being proposed in these EOs. So far, just under 10k UCS supporters have used this link to send emails to their Representatives.
- Stay up to date and get involved with our Save Science Save Lives campaign.
- Use this link to contact your members of Congress to ask them to intervene on the Trump Administration’s unprecedented power grab that would undermine science in policymaking.
- If you have any federal scientists in your life, share this list of resources with them so they can know their rights and protect themselves.
We’ll continue to monitor how things unfold with these EOs and other ways that the Trump Administration may further attack science in the federal government.