Independent Agency Rules — Week of Mar 17, 2025

During the week of March 17, 2025, the White House issued several executive orders that direct government agencies to significantly reduce or potentially eliminate their own operations—in some cases, agencies that Congress created by law. These actions affect agencies that are designed to operate based on their statutory missions rather than presidential preference, and they arrived alongside an order targeting a private law firm over its legal work.

This might matter because agencies like the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, the Institute of Museum and Library Services, and the Department of Education were established by Congress to carry out specific public functions. When a president directs these agencies to shrink to the bare legal minimum—and instructs budget officials to reject their funding requests—it could significantly reduce congressionally mandated services without Congress voting to end them. This raises questions about whether the legislative branch's power to create and fund agencies is being circumvented.

One executive order, Continuing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy, orders seven government bodies to cut their work to the absolute minimum the law allows. The administration has framed this as an effort to reduce government inefficiency. Another, Improving Education Outcomes, directs the Secretary of Education to work toward closing the entire Department of Education, citing the view that education decisions belong at the state and local level. A third, Addressing Risks From Paul Weiss, suspends security clearances and reviews contracts with a law firm, citing national security concerns but tying these actions in its own text to the firm's pro bono legal work on behalf of January 6 participants and its employment of a prosecutor who investigated the President.

There are important alternative explanations to consider. First, presidents have significant authority to manage executive branch operations, and reorganizing or downsizing agencies is not unprecedented. Second, many of these orders include legal savings clauses ("consistent with applicable law"), which may limit their practical effect—courts could block actions that exceed presidential authority. Third, some of these orders may function as negotiation positions with Congress rather than final policy, and rescinding a predecessor's executive orders, as done in Additional Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders, is a normal part of any presidential transition.

What distinguishes this week's actions is their cumulative scope and the explicit targeting of statutory functions, not just discretionary programs. The Paul Weiss order is particularly notable because its own text ties government action to a firm's protected legal advocacy.

Limitations: This analysis covers only 8 documents from one week, a small sample that limits statistical reliability. It is AI-generated, not a finding of fact. Legal challenges to several of these orders are likely, and courts may limit their implementation.