Monitoring democratic institutions through public records
Executive Actions — Week of Sep 1, 2025
Tracking presidential actions and new regulations. Government actions that bypass normal legislative or regulatory processes, concentrate decision-making authority, or expand executive power beyond established norms.
AI content assessment elevated
AI content assessment elevated with high P2 concern rate. Warrants close examination.
Three government actions this week raised questions about the balance of power between the executive branch and the checks designed to constrain it.
The most significant involved a finding by the Government Accountability Office that the Department of Health and Human Services violated a federal law requiring agencies to submit new rules to Congress for review. HHS had rescinded a 55-year-old policy that guaranteed the public could weigh in on rules affecting grants, benefits, and contracts—but never told Congress, as the Congressional Review Act requires. This might matter because bypassing the CRA submission requirement could undermine Congress's ability to review and potentially overturn agency rule changes, a safeguard that exists to ensure unelected officials don't make major policy shifts without elected representatives having a say. The most likely innocent explanation is that HHS simply made an administrative error in not filing the paperwork; however, the GAO's formal opinion suggests this was a substantive legal failure, not a clerical one.
Separately, the Department of Homeland Security issued a final rule giving immigration services officers—who traditionally process applications—the power to make arrests, execute warrants, and carry firearms. While DHS says this supports fraud investigations, federal law specifically prohibits merging the functions of agencies Congress deliberately separated. It's possible this is simply formalizing authorities that were already being used informally, which would increase transparency.
Finally, a presidential memorandum directed the Attorney General to investigate whether nonprofit organizations receiving federal grants are illegally using the money for lobbying or political activity. Enforcing existing anti-lobbying laws is appropriate, but the memorandum's broad language about grants with "highly political overtones" could discourage legitimate advocacy by organizations that depend on federal funding. An alternative explanation is that specific evidence of misuse prompted this action, though the memorandum does not cite any.
Limitations: This analysis is based on publicly available documents reviewed with AI assistance and does not represent a finding of fact. Context not visible in these documents could change the significance of these actions.