Independent Agency Rules — Week of Feb 3, 2025

During the first week of February 2025, the White House issued several executive orders that direct federal agencies to change their rules and policies on specific topics — including healthcare, military standards, education, and regulatory review — in ways that go beyond setting general priorities and instead dictate the substance of what agencies should do. At the same time, members of Congress raised alarms about the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) accessing Treasury Department payment systems and shutting down USAID operations, as well as mass workforce reduction efforts targeting career federal employees.

This might matter because agencies like HHS, the Department of Education, and the Department of Defense were set up by Congress to make certain decisions based on expertise and law, not direct White House instructions. When an executive order on deregulation requires the OMB Director to pre-approve every new regulation and imposes binding cost caps, it could affect agencies' ability to fulfill their legal responsibilities independently — potentially weakening the system Congress created to ensure regulations are based on evidence and public input rather than political direction alone.

Similarly, when an executive order on children's healthcare tells HHS exactly which regulatory actions to take across seven program areas, it may substitute presidential preferences for the medical and scientific judgment agencies are supposed to exercise. An order on military standards directs the rewriting of medical eligibility rules to exclude transgender service members, using value-laden language in what are normally technical fitness criteria.

Congressional speeches documented additional concerns. Senator Schumer described DOGE staffers accessing Treasury payment systems without clear legal authority. Senator Reed documented that the GAO found OMB broke the law eight times under its previous director. Representative Norton cataloged hiring freezes, mass resignation offers, and the reinstatement of Schedule F — a classification that strips civil service protections — as efforts that could push experienced workers out of government.

There are alternative explanations worth weighing. Presidents have long used executive orders to direct agency priorities, and OMB regulatory review has been a feature of every administration since Reagan — the administration may view this as streamlining government to improve efficiency and reduce regulatory burden. Changes to military standards may be defended as supporting operational readiness and cohesion. Workforce reforms may address real management challenges. And congressional speeches criticizing these actions come from opposition members and reflect their political perspective.

Limitations: This analysis is based on published executive orders and congressional statements, not confirmed outcomes. Courts may block some of these orders, and actual agency implementation may differ from what was directed.