Blog

During his first term, President Donald Trump encountered for the first time the modern regulatory system that Congress has slowly built up over the last century. What he found was that its commitment to rule of law principles, democratic input, and reason-based decision-making presented a formidable barrier to his administration’s agenda of rolling back protective measures that millions of us depend on to keep our workplaces safe, our drinking water free of contaminants, and our bank accounts guarded against cheats and scams. That experience clearly left an impression. With the help of Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought and other White House advisors, Trump has spent the first few months of his second term issuing a dizzying array of executive orders aimed at building, piece by piece, the kind of regulatory system that he would like to have — one that is strongly biased against promoting the public interest.

There are many reasons why Senate Republicans’ recent decision to defy the parliamentarian and repeal California’s Clean Air Act waivers using the Congressional Review Act (CRA) was objectionable. But one objection that hasn’t received enough – any? – attention is how legislative gimmicks like the CRA contribute to the broader problem of congressional dysfunction.

Never before in our lifetimes has the rule of law felt so tenuous. These are not normal times for a research and advocacy organization dedicated to “harnessing the power of law and public policy to create a responsive government, healthy environment and just society.” Many of the policy ideas that we have championed — for example, worker safety protections, a fair regulatory system, climate actions that address equity concerns — have been adopted in some form. And today, these policies, as well as the democratic institutions which enforce them, are under threat.

Since our last update on May 19, we have seen some critical developments regarding  Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolutions. In addition to the relentless progression of some resolutions towards becoming law, the most troublesome was the decision in the Senate to vote on the CRA resolutions ending Clean Air Act waivers issued to California. As James Goodwin said in a recent blog post on the matter, this represents a clear example of Senate Republicans “failing to follow the rules that they agreed to — and doing so to advance their policy agenda without heed to the rule of law wreckage they leave in their wake."

The disease of authoritarianism now afflicting our democracy spread to yet another of our governing institutions the night of May 21. Do not be fooled: The debate over Senate Republicans' misuse of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) is not “inside baseball” or wonky or even complicated. Rather, it’s a simple story of legislators failing to follow the rules that they agreed to — and doing so to advance their policy agenda without heed to the rule of law wreckage they leave in their wake.

President Donald Trump has taken some dramatic steps in the name of improving use of NEPA, the statute governing environmental reviews of projects. The goal is to speed up the permitting process and make it more efficient. The reality is that his efforts will create chaos and uncertainty, with the likely effect of slowing things down.

Since our last update (May 12), we have seen some movement regarding Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolutions. The pace has remained high, with outlets like The Hill and Banking Dive reporting that President Trump has signed multiple resolutions into law. Oddly, no official sources (like the White House’s website or congress.gov) reflect these developments.

Since our last update (May 6), we have seen some movement regarding Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolutions. The pace in the Senate remained high, and we have seen lawmakers try to maximize their output before the CRA cutoff date.

In two previous posts, we discussed the major findings of the Project 2025 tracker we created along with our partners at Governing for Impact for monitoring the Trump administration’s ongoing efforts to implement its recommendations over its first 100 days. We also began offering some insights into making sense of these findings and how to interpret them. The basic finding was that the administration has fulfilled more than a quarter of Project 2025’s recommended executive actions affecting domestic policy. This raises a natural follow-up question: Is that a lot? In this post, we continue to provide analytical tools for answering that question.