How has Trump's deregulatory order worked in practice?

• Published in: Policy File 2018
• Main Author: Raso, Connor
• Format: Report
• Language: English
• Subjects: Government; The Brookings Institution

The Trump administration's executive order requiring agencies to eliminate two rules for every new rule ("one in, two out") has received a great deal of attention but little analysis of how it has worked in practice. Has the order chilled regulation that imposes new costs altogether? Or have agencies added new rules that impose costs while diligently eliminating old ones? Or have agencies managed to skirt the order and issue rules that impose new costs without providing deregulatory offsets? In short, how has the order actually affected rulemaking? These questions can be more fully addressed now that the order has been in effect for approximately 18 months. This piece analyzes two key questions. First, have agencies under Trump issued new rules with costs? If so, what motivated these rulemaking efforts and how did they justify such rules? Second, did agencies issue deregulatory rules to offset new rules that impose costs? If so, were these deregulatory rules meaningful or relatively minor? In brief, this piece finds that Trump administration agencies issued very few new rules that imposed regulatory costs. Most such rules were required by statute or were otherwise routine. On the flipside, Trump agencies also did relatively little deregulation outside of delaying and repealing rules issued late in the Obama administration. On balance, then, the picture is one of inaction. The Trump administration has halted the growth of regulation that imposes costs but so far has left the existing regulatory framework largely in place.