In the News

As the Biden administration seeks to undo the 'science transparency' rule, along with over 100 other environmental deregulatory actions undertaken by the Trump administration, it can now make use of the most powerful tool in the arsenal: the Congressional Review Act (CRA). Now that Democrats control the House and Senate, they can deploy the tool more effectively and proceed even without Republican votes.

The Department of Health and Human Services' insidious new policy, known as the Sunset Rule, commits it to reassessing the economic impacts of almost every one of the department’s existing regulations and establishes an extreme penalty for noncompliance: If a regulation is not reviewed by its 10th anniversary, it simply blinks out of existence. HHS claims the power to repeal thousands of rules at once without so much as explaining what they do, much less justifying the harm that could arise in their absence.

Trump administration policies can be undone using the same aggressive techniques that the administration itself used. The primary tools that President Trump relied on, such as executive orders and guidance, do not make for permanent or durable U.S. policy. And many Trump-era regulations were poorly executed and supported, making it easier to undo those rules.

Richard Revesz shares his thoughts on how the transition to a new presidential administration later this month will impact U.S. environmental and climate change policy.

New York state is home to a nation-leading climate change law. But it is also home to long-standing legal frameworks that enable — and in some cases, encourage — the consumption of fossil fuels. Leaving these legacy frameworks in place could undermine New York's ability to implement its new climate law, and accomplish a safe and just managed transition away from fossil fuels. Other states should take note.

In a move that could blaze a trail to meaningful climate action nationwide, New York’s Public Service Commission, which is responsible for regulating that state’s utilities, is calling on them to disclose the financial risks they face due to climate change. Requiring utilities to develop and present this information would be a potent way to push a critically important sector of the economy to reveal and respond to the consequences of climate change — and to save consumers money along the way.

Federal investments and procurement choices can either reinforce the status quo, or provide a template for a broader societal shift toward a low-emissions economy. Improved GSA policies could reduce emissions across the entire federal government.

For decades, there has been a bipartisan consensus that federal agencies should base their decisions on evidence, expertise, and analysis. But under the Trump Administration, inconvenient evidence has often been ignored, experts have been sidelined, and analysis has been misused to intentionally obscure important truths. In this episode, we talk to Prof. Michael Livermore (University of Virginia School of Law) and Prof. Richard Revesz (New York University School of Law) to discuss current challenges as well as considerations for the road ahead. Their new book, Reviving Rationality: Saving Cost-Benefit Analysis for the Sake of the Environment and Our Health, offers analysis on critical aspects of the regulatory process and calls for the reinstatement of expertise, sound cost-benefit analysis, and the rule of law in public administration.

In 2008, Michael Livermore and Richard Revesz wrote Retaking Rationality, a book arguing that cost-benefit analysis of regulations should be recognized not as an anti-regulatory weapon, but rather a nonideological tool for promoting good government. Now they return with a new book, Reviving Rationality, which analyzes developments since 2008, and proposes further reforms for cost-benefit analysis going forward. They discuss it with the C. Boyden Gray Center for the Administrative State’s Executive Director, Adam White.

President Donald Trump famously promised to win so much that his supporters would be tired of it. But as a running tally of legal challenges to his administration’s actions shows, he has lost in court more than any other president. His overall win rate is currently 17 percent, while past administrations generally won around 70 percent of cases. And even a reelected Trump is at risk of continuing to lose dramatically in court.