A government that recognizes that it has an affirmative responsibility to address social and economic harms that threaten the stability of our democracy. An empowered and well-resourced administrative state that helps carry out this responsibility by, among other things, collaborating with affected members of the public, particularly members of structurally marginalized communities, while marshaling its own independent expertise.
We believe that these are some of the core principles that should make up a progressive vision of an administrative state.
It has long been recognized that progressives have failed to articulate such a vision — or at least one that is coherent, comprehensive, and compelling enough to shape the broader policy discourse. But the urgency for doing so has only increased over the last year with the arrival of Project 2025, the ultra-right-wing plan for building and deploying an authoritarian administrative state.
In contrast to previous ambitions of bringing about the “deconstruction of the administrative state,” Project 2025 reflects a new conservative movement that is now alive to the possibilities that an authoritarian approach to this critical part of our system of constitutional governance would present for achieving its ideological goals. Properly understood, Project 2025 offers a blueprint for how an authoritarian administrative state could be used to sustain minority rule indefinitely under an autocratic president with full control over a powerful, weaponized administrative apparatus committed to Christian nationalist principles.
But, as we all know, it’s hard to beat something with nothing — even when that something is objectively horrifying. Worse still, Project 2025 runs the risk of further poisoning public attitudes toward the administrative state by creating the impression that this institution is inextricably linked to autocracy, inequality, and dismantling our basic freedoms.
For better or worse, the old political debate we’ve all been steeped in — big vs. small government — is effectively over, as nearly all the points across the political spectrum now embrace some vision of a vigorous administrative state. That means progressives will have to more clearly and forcefully articulate what our vision of a vigorous administrative state should look like.
Today, we are taking the first important steps in this effort by releasing our own Statement of Principles for a Progressive Administrative State. First, the statement lays out our vision of what a progressive administrative state should be and do. This vision holds the administrative state as a legitimate and necessary part of our constitutional system of government. It recognizes the vital role that the administrative state should play in our society, including as a custodian and agent of the rule of law and as a guardian against excessive concentrations of private political and economic power that threaten to destabilize our economy and democracy.
Next, the statement recognizes that while the administrative state largely aligns with this vision, it is falling short of achieving its full potential. Accordingly, it lays out a reform agenda aimed at making the administrative state even more robust, responsive, and inclusive. Some prescriptions are longstanding and familiar. For example, this agenda calls on policymakers to provide agencies with the financial and legal resources needed to fulfill their respective missions. Others are of a more recent vintage, such as making decision-making more attentive to considerations of social justice and equity.
Importantly, the goal of our statement is not to end the conversation among progressives of what we collectively want from the administrative state. Instead, it is meant to start such a conversation — one that in our view is long overdue. All of the components of our vision and the items that make up our reform agenda are therefore contingent and open for debate and continuous revision.
America currently stands at a crossroads when it comes to the future of the U.S. administrative state — and, indeed, the future of U.S. democracy itself. We look forward to engaging in this important and timely conversation with our progressive allies in the months and years ahead.
Showing 2,829 results
James Goodwin | September 19, 2024
A government that recognizes that it has an affirmative responsibility to address social and economic harms that threaten the stability of our democracy. An empowered and well-resourced administrative state that helps carry out this responsibility by, among other things, collaborating with affected members of the public, particularly members of structurally marginalized communities, while marshaling its own independent expertise. We believe that these are some of the core principles that should make up a progressive vision of an administrative state.
Sophie Loeb | September 17, 2024
On September 17, the Center for Progressive Reform published a new policy brief, Rising to the Challenge: How State Public Utilities Commissions Can Use the Inflation Reduction Act to Advance Clean Energy. This brief examines the ability of public utilities commissions (PUCs) to incorporate Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) funding into their energy planning processes in order to expand the uptake of renewable energy resources at a lower cost to consumers.
Minor Sinclair, Spencer Green | September 12, 2024
The summer of 2024 will be remembered for many things, but here at the Center for Progressive Reform, what most struck us was that it was the year that the administrative state broke through into public consciousness. From the unexpected virality of, and backlash against, Project 2025 — a massive right-wing legal manifesto as aggressive as it was arcane — to the Supreme Court regulatory rulings that made headlines for weeks, this year’s political news drove home that the work we do to protect the environment, the workforce, and public health matters very much to we, the people when these things are under attack. In this context, we approach the task of inviting new members to join us in our work with seriousness, but also with much excitement. This spring, we reviewed nearly two dozen exceptional candidates from the fields of law and public policy. Today, we are pleased to announce that we have a cohort of three excellent scholars to add to our ranks.
Grayson Lanza | August 8, 2024
Eastern North Carolina’s landscape is pocked with artificial lagoons holding a noxious liquid that causes suffering both for local residents and the global climate. The liquid? Hog manure, held in giant, open-air pits that are used by large-scale industrial facilities called concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), In CAFOs, operators raise large numbers of animals in confined spaces that allow for easier feeding and waste management — and higher profits.
Federico Holm, Johan Cavert, Nicole Pavia | August 1, 2024
Building clean energy infrastructure quickly will be critical to avoiding the worst impacts of climate change while bolstering grid resilience and flexibility. Much of the discourse portrays infrastructure deployment as plagued by bureaucratic and legal holdups that should be eliminated or drastically curtailed in service of faster development — with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) often taking sole blame for these delays. But is that really where the problem is? Our analyses suggest that solely blaming NEPA for permitting delays overlooks other contributing factors.
James Goodwin | July 29, 2024
When I think about what makes the Center for Progressive Reform the “Center for Progressive Reform,” one name comes to mind: Rena Steinzor. This year, Rena is officially retiring from her “day job” as Professor of Law at the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law, so it is a fitting occasion to reflect on what her “side hustle” at the Center meant for the organization and for me personally.
Daniel Farber | July 23, 2024
Last Friday, the D.C. Circuit issued a two-page opinion refusing to stay a regulation. The D.C. Circuit frequently denies stays, but this ruling was notable for three reasons: It allows an important climate change regulation to go into effect; it clarifies an important legal doctrine; and it has a good chance of being upheld on appeal — even though the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a previous regulation on the same subject.
Daniel Farber | July 11, 2024
To cushion the shock of abandoning Chevron, the U.S. Supreme Court created a safe harbor for past judicial decisions. This was well-advised. The Court itself applied Chevron at least 70 times, as did thousands of lower court decisions. The key question will be the scope of the grandfather clause.
Daniel Farber | July 10, 2024
Regulations that were upheld by the courts during the Chevron era have some protection, but new regulations will be fully subject to Loper Bright rather than Chevron. The general refrain in the Loper opinion is “Skidmore deference.” What does that mean and when does it apply?