The White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs may be the most important group of bureaucrats many Americans have never heard of. But CPR's Member Scholars and staff keep careful watch on the office of the so-called "regulatory czar." Over the years, the office has come to play an increasingly destructive role in the regulatory process, weakening, gutting, and killing rules designed to protect health, safety and the environment. In this web article, James Goodwin lays out the case for a radical overhaul of OIRA's mission and methods.

Trump's New 'Regulatory Czar': Poised to Lead the Assault on Our Safeguards, CPR Paper 1701. The report by CPR Member Scholars Thomas McGarity, Amy Sinden, Rena Steinzor, and Robert Verchick, and CPR Senior Policy Analyst James Goodwin, examines Neomi Rao’s background and concludes the her modest record of “scholarship and other public statements reflect a deep distrust of federal agencies and their role as policymaking institutions within our constitutional system of government.”

The July 3, 2017, decision by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in Clean Air Council v. Pruitt renewed interest in the many rules that the Trump administration has delayed. In response, CPR Member Scholar Rena Steinzor and University of Maryland law student Elise Desiderio prepared a chart listing and describing every rule for which a Federal Register notice was published announcing a delay in either the effective date or the compliance date or both. The delays listed involve postponements beyond July 14, 2017. The list covers the period from January 20, 2017 to July 14, 2017.

Final Comments on Obama Regulatory Review Process, joint letter from several CPR Member Scholars

Preliminary Comments on Obama Regulatory Process Memo. Letter to OMB chief Peter Orszag.

Data Quality Or Scientific Censorship?, op-ed by John Applegate, Don Hornstein, Thomas O. McGarity, Sid Shapiro, RenaSteinzor, and Wendy Wagner, published in Risk Policy Report

Balancing Lives Against Lucre, op-ed by Frank Ackerman and Lisa Heinzerling

Bush's Cost-Benefit View Carries a High Price, op-ed by Frank Ackerman and Lisa Heinzerling

The Cost-Benefit Dodge: Used to Dilute Regulation, op-ed by Catherine O'Neill and Amy Sinden

Comments to the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs on 2009 OMB Report to Congress re the costs and benefits of regulation, by Amy Sinden, Rena Steinzor and James Goodwin

Letter from several CPR Member Scholars to White House Counsel re three ongoing violations of presidential executive orders by the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs: 1) continuing review of agency guidance documents; 2) exceeding deadlines for completing reviews; 3) failing to disclose "before and after" documents allowing public scrutiny of OIRA revisions to rules

Comments from CPR Member Scholars and staff on 2010 OMB Report to Congress on Costs and Benefits of Regulation

Letter to the Administrative Conference of the United States on science in the administrative process. "In particular, we are interested in the recommendations related to the role of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs [and its] ...failure to follow the transparency requirements of Executive Order 12,866 and its interference in matters that involve expert scientific judgment.

Joint letter to Senators on Independent Agency Regulatory Analysis Act

President has authority to act on regulatory issues, op-ed by David Driesen

Letter from Robert Verchick and James Goodwin to the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law re the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

Noah M. Sachs' July 15, 2015, testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

Letter from Robert Verchick and James Goodwin to Senate Homeland Security Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management re the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

Robert Verchick, Thomas McGarity, Sidney Shapiro, July 27, 2015, letter to U.S. Senators re the Independent Agency Regulatory Analysis Act of 2015.

David Driesen's July 6, 2016, testimony before the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law re OIRA's role and cost-benefit analysis.

Joint Letter to OIRA from 31 CPR Member Scholars and Staff re Guidance to Agencies on Implementation of 2-for-1 Deregulatory Executive Order

Read CPR's backgrounder on the role of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

In James Goodwin's article on the workings of cost-benefit analysis, he writes, "In cost-benefit analysis, small government ideologues and corporate interests have fashioned a powerful weapon for attacking regulatory safeguards and undercutting landmark laws. Much of that power derives from the elaborate mythology that its proponents have woven around the methodology over the course of the past four decades.... For its supporters, the real genius of the cost-benefit analysis myth is that it distracts from the fact that the methodology is in fact neither neutral nor objective."

Rebuilding our regulatory system is a key though often overlooked imperative for the broader progressive movement as it works to achieve its vision of a more equitable and just society. The rebuilding will ultimately require legislation, but considerable progress can be achieved through unilateral actions by the president, including executive orders. Building on its previous work to advance the cause of progressive regulatory reform, CPR is compiling on this page resources and materials that should inform the development of new executive orders for progressive regulation that would replace Executive Order 12866 and any subsequent executive orders and memoranda built on its framework.

In this web article, James Goodwin describes the ways that cost-benefit analysis as used in the regulatory process perpetuates racial injustice and reinforces race-based inequities.

In his latest article on the need for regulatory reform, James Goodwin writes that overhauling cost-benefit analysis is crucial to restoring scientific integrity. He writes, "blind-to-reality calculations are sadly commonplace in the practice of the unique form of cost-benefit analysis that now dominates in the U.S. regulatory system. Defenders of the approach claim that it makes regulatory decision-making more 'rational' and insulates the process against improper political or subjective considerations. Yet ... the methodological techniques this form of cost-benefit analysis uses can be arbitrary, unscientific, ethically dubious, and at times even absurd."

CPR joined the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards and 94 other organizations in calling on the incoming Biden-Harris administration to direct the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) to take on the mission of advancing a strong, proactive agenda for safeguarding the public, workers, and the environment. The groups offered a set of recommendations to help ensure that our regulatory system protects workers, consumers, our environment, and our economy.

A poll conducted by the Center for Progressive Reform (CPR) and Data for Progress in January 2021 finds broad public support for a progressive climate agenda that relies on regulatory action, even if it means slower economic growth. It also shows that the public opposes the process the government currently uses to assess the costs and benefits of regulations because it undervalues clean air, safe water, and a healthy climate. Poll results and analysis are available below.

The surging COVID-19 delta variant is sending thousands of people to the hospital, killing others, and straining several states' hospital systems to their breaking point. The climate crisis is hurting people, communities and countries as we write this piece, with apocalyptic wildfires, crippling droughts and raging floodwaters. Systemic racism continues unabated, leading to vast economic and environmental injustices. It's beyond time for urgent action, but to get there, the federal government must reform the opaque, biased method it uses to evaluate our nation's public health, economic and environmental protections.

The Center for Progressive Reform joined dozens of other organizations in a letter to the White House Office of Management and Budget, urging it and the Biden administration to get to work on making good on its goals to modernize, improve, and reform the current regulatory review process. That process often results in weaker standards and safeguards than are needed to protect all people and our environment.