Why Republicans Can’t Stop Obama’s Executive Actions on Day One

Reversing Obama’s regulations and executive actions wouldn’t be as simple as the Republican field would have you believe.

US President Barack Obama delivers remarks during a town hall at the Young African Leaders Initiative (YALI) Mandela Washington Fellowship Presidential Summit in Washington, DC, August 3, 2015. The three-day Summit brings together 500 of sub-Saharan Africas most promising young leaders to meet with the President and leading US entrepreneurs, government officials, and civil society representatives. 
National Journal
Aug. 17, 2015, 1:02 a.m.

The 2016 GOP contenders have made some pretty ambitious and far-reaching plans for their first day in office. Rick Perry said he’d show up on Day One with “a bottle of White-Out “¦ to get started on all those executive orders that Mr. Obama has put his name to.” Ted Cruz cast the net wide, pledging to use part of his first day in office to “rescind every illegal and unconstitutional action taken by Barack Obama.”

Carly Fiorina was a little more specific — she said she would “begin by undoing a whole set of things that President Obama has done, whether it is illegal amnesty or this latest round of EPA regulations.”

But — even setting aside the fact that there are only 24 hours in Day One and that new presidents don’t get the keys until noon — quickly undoing a predecessor’s legacy is easier said than done.

(RELATED: Obama Reaches for Green Legacy, But Will History Books Agree?)

Take those EPA regulations, for starters. There’s no question Republicans hate them. They will be challenged in the courts — maybe even successfully. But it’s extremely difficult for any new administration to put any of its predecessor’s finalized regulations on the chopping block.

“Assuming you really want to change the policies, that’s going to be hard to do by changing a regulation,” said Cary Coglianese, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania who leads a program focused on regulation.

The Environmental Protection Agency finalized its regulations implementing Obama’s clean-energy plan earlier this month, after collecting public comments and making revisions for more than a year. To rescind those regulations, a new president would have to start the whole process all over again — taking the time to write a proposed rule, then gathering public feedback, and eventually finalizing a new and contradictory policy. It’s a long road and a hard tactic to justify, regulatory experts said.

“Just the change of administration itself is not a sufficient reason to change a regulation,” Coglianese said.

The same limitations would apply to most of Obamacare. Most of the law has been implemented, so there’s not much a new president could freeze. And to undo what has already been done would require the next administration to reopen a whole host of rules — then commit at least a year to a fight over Obama’s health care agenda, rather than the new president’s.

Political will is always a factor as new administrations decide which of their predecessors’ actions they want to reverse, experts said, even in cases when the process itself wouldn’t be as difficult as reopening a regulation.

Susan Dudley, who led the White House’s regulatory-review office during the George W. Bush administration and now teaches at George Washington University, said the next president’s chief of staff will probably issue a memo on Day One freezing regulations that are already in the pipeline. It’s a chance for the new administration to apply its policy priorities to the first batch of rules that will be issued on its watch.

(RELATED: Defense Contractors to Obama: Enough With the Executive Orders)

There are still changes a new president could make while that review is under way, Dudley noted. Rescinding an executive order, for example, is as easy as signing a new one. Theoretically, that would allow a Republican president to easily undo a slew of Obama’s orders — raising the minimum wage for federal contractors, extending new protections to gay employees, etc.

But experts said it’s not very common to see big policy reversals early in an administration. Recent presidents might pick one or two things to quickly reverse or reopen, they said, but they have generally preferred to use their early political capital on nominations and legislation.

If the next president does want to pick a few spots to quickly and unilaterally roll back Obama’s policies, immigration might be the easiest target. Obama’s deferred-deportation program wasn’t even an executive order, but rather an “executive action” — a directive about how immigration officials should prioritize their resources. Issuing a new directive would fall squarely within the new president’s authority and would barely require any formal action.

“Things that are being done as policy initiatives are easier to reverse,” said Ron White, the director of regulatory policy at the Center for Effective Government.

And just as Obama exercised “enforcement discretion” to shape immigration policy, a Republican administration could adopt its own version of discretion to slow-walk policies that are too big to change outright. The next EPA administrator, for example, could simply decide that it’s not a high priority to finish implementing Obama’s Clean Power Plan.

“You could see, for example, them saying, ‘We’re going to give states an extension of deadlines to come into compliance.’ That would be easy to do,” Coglianese said.

What We're Following See More »
AMONG INVESTIGATION'S LAST KNOWN INTERVIEWS
Mueller Has Interviewed Press Sec. Sarah Sanders
2 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"Special counsel Robert Mueller's team has interviewed White House press secretary Sarah Sanders, she told CNN on Friday...The interview is one of the final known interviews by Mueller's team. It was conducted late last year, around the same time as the special counsel interviewed then-White House chief of staff John Kelly, well after a number of other senior officials, including former White House communications director Hope Hicks and former press secretary Sean Spicer, were brought in for questioning."

Source:
AG BECERRA CALLS TRUMP'S PLAN A 'FOOLISH PROPOSAL'
Gov. Newsom Says California Will Sue Trump Over Emergency Declaration
2 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"Gov. Gavin Newsom said Friday that California was planning to sue the Trump administration over its declaration of a national emergency on the southern border with Mexico, delivering on a promise state Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra made last week 'to reject this foolish proposal in court the moment it touches the ground.'...'No other state is going to be impacted by this declaration of emergency more than the state of California,' the governor said. Becerra said attorneys were reviewing the declaration and would develop the legal argument to take to court in the near future."

Source:
AVOIDS SHUTDOWN WITH A FEW HOURS TO SPARE
Trump Signs Border Deal
2 hours ago
THE LATEST

"President Trump signed a sweeping spending bill Friday afternoon, averting another partial government shutdown. The action came after Trump had declared a national emergency in a move designed to circumvent Congress and build additional barriers at the southern border, where he said the United States faces 'an invasion of our country.'"

Source:
JUDGE SIDES WITH MUELLER
Stone Under Gag Order
4 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"A federal judge on Friday ordered Roger Stone, his attorneys and the special counsel’s office to halt all public commentary about the case involving charges that the longtime Donald Trump associate lied to Congress and obstructed its Russia investigation. In a four-page order, U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson sided with Mueller that Stone and his attorneys 'must refrain from making statements to the media or in public settings that pose a substantial likelihood of material prejudice to this case.'"

Source:
HAS NOT BEEN INCLUDED SINCE 1950
Supreme Court Will Rule on Census Citizenship Question
6 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"The Supreme Court added a politically explosive case to its low-profile docket Friday, agreeing to decide by the end of June whether the Trump administration can add a question about citizenship to the 2020 Census form sent to every American household. The census hasn’t asked the question of each household since 1950, and a federal judge last month stopped the Commerce Department from adding it to the upcoming count. He questioned the motives of Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, and said the secretary broke a 'veritable smorgasbord' of federal rules by overriding the advice of career officials."

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login