Emergency Powers Can Reduce Rather Than Expand Government

With back-to-back natural weather disasters dominating headlines, the use of federal emergency powers has become a focal point.

It’s important to recognize that these powers, often associated with expanding government control, can also be strategically employed to scale back rules and regulations, providing relief and fostering resilience for those most in need of flexibility to rebuild.

In his first month in office in 2021, Joe Biden issued a series of executive orders revoking several Trump-era directives, part of a broader agenda aimed at dismantling the previous administration’s deregulatory policies in pursuit of progressive objectives.

Among these directives, and particularly relevant to the suffering caused by Hurricanes Helene and Milton, was Trump’s Executive Order 13924 entitled “Regulatory Relief to Support Economic Recovery.” This order had been issued less than a year before at the height of the COVID-19 episode.

Trump’s order, three years into an administration that had already instituted a “one-in, two-out” cost containment strategy for regulations, empowered agencies to even further ease regulatory burdens on those grappling with the economic fallout of the health and economic crisis.

E.O. 13924, which Biden should reinstate, accelerated the review of rules that could be paused or permanently changed and directed agencies to “rescind, modify, waive, or provide exemptions from regulations and other requirements that may inhibit economic recovery.” It specifically acknowledged that small businesses, in particular, needed clarity and fairness during a time of crisis. Uniquely, it also permitted enforcement discretion for businesses struggling during the pandemic.

Some of that might sound like standard regulatory relief rhetoric, but E.O. 13924 represented something more significant. What made it notable and unique was its bold use of emergency powers to shrink rather than expand government.

“The heads of all agencies are directed to use, to the fullest extent possible and consistent with applicable law, any emergency authorities that I have previously invoked in response to the COVID– 19 outbreak or that are otherwise available to them to support the economic response to the COVID–19 outbreak. The heads of all agencies are also encouraged to promote economic recovery through non-regulatory actions.”

Biden’s revocation of this particular Trump directive was brought to my mind again by a column from my CEI colleague Ryan Young, titled “#NeverNeeded Regulations Hindering Hurricane Recovery.” Young emphasized that unnecessary federal and state regulations can hinder recovery efforts and reiterated calls for the removal of outdated and obstructive rules. These include barriers to private relief efforts, counterproductive and absurd inveighing against “price gouging,” occupational licensing regulations, distortions from subsidized flood insurance, and the notorious Jones Act, which can restrict the delivery of crucial supplies to affected areas.

Trump’s order aimed not just at temporarily relaxing rules (had he remained in office); it also instructed agencies to consider making beneficial changes permanent. Biden should never have revoked this directive. His unwise decision to rescind E.O. 13924 closed the door on targeted regulatory relief that could now be vital for hurricane recovery. A reinstatement—or an updated version—of E.O. 13924 is urgently needed and should be maintained as an ongoing program. Hurricanes and other natural disasters require flexibility in response, not regulatory bottlenecks that delay recovery. Red tape involved in permitting, licensing, and compliance can create unnecessary obstacles for communities striving to rebuild quickly. Most importantly, this flexibility is essential for resilience and preparedness for future shocks.

Reinstating a version of Trump’s order would not only help address the immediate needs of hurricane recovery but also provide a model for managing future crises—be they natural disasters or economic downturns. Furthermore, re-establishing the flexibility and downsizing mindset would help keep government overreach in check and ensure that agencies act with fairness and transparency, avoiding the “unfair surprise” of administrative enforcement (as E.O. 13924 put it) that businesses can face when trying to comply with shifting regulations.

As in Trump’s original order, any reinstated action must respect tight legal boundaries, operating “consistent with applicable law” (a phrase appearing five times in Trump’s order). We must be clear: a reinstatement of the Trump order is not to be interpreted as a call for an expansion of emergency powers, which tend to be abused and therefore need to be curtailed legislatively. Instead, a reinstatement could clarify that while agencies exercise emergency powers to streamline recovery, they are not to be further misused to expand government control, as some progressives might be tempted to do in the name of purported crises like climate change, “housing insecurity” or the “care economy.” The expansion of emergency powers has become a prominent feature of crisis exploitation; the call here is for recognition of the “emergency” that government interventions can cause, artificially induce, or prolong the challenges and difficulties faced by communities.

Read more at Forbes