Independent Agency Rules — Week of Jul 7, 2025

Several government actions this week raised questions about whether independent federal agencies are being directed to make decisions based on political goals rather than scientific evidence and public input. Most notably, Senator Barrasso introduced S. 2262, the "American Voices in Federal Lands Act," which would require the Bureau of Land Management to consider only comments from U.S. citizens when writing new rules—excluding corporations, universities, scientific organizations, and legal residents from the process. Separately, Executive Order 14315 directed federal agencies to eliminate tax credits for wind and solar energy on a compressed 45-day timeline, and another executive order on national parks directed the Interior Department to review all recreational access rules with particular attention to those adopted during the prior administration.

This might matter because the public comment process—where anyone can submit evidence and arguments before an agency finalizes a rule—is one of the main ways the government ensures its regulations are based on real-world expertise rather than political preferences. If agencies are told in advance what conclusions to reach, or if the range of expert voices they can hear is restricted by law, the quality and independence of federal regulation could be undermined.

There are important alternative explanations to consider. The bill restricting public comments is a proposal, not a law—it was referred to committee and may never advance. Its sponsors argue it protects against foreign interference in domestic land management and prioritizes the voices of American citizens in decisions about American public lands, which is a legitimate concern, though the bill's language sweeps far more broadly than foreign governments. Similarly, presidents have always used executive orders to set policy direction, and reviewing a predecessor's regulations is standard practice. The compressed 45-day timeline in Executive Order 14315 could also be seen as a practical effort to quickly implement new congressional legislation rather than an attempt to bypass public input. The national parks order is unusually explicit about targeting the prior administration's rules, but functionally this kind of regulatory review is not unprecedented.

Limitations: Only 17 documents were reviewed this week, a small sample in which a single document can significantly affect results. The bill discussed has not been enacted. Executive orders set direction but face legal constraints and judicial review. This is AI-generated analysis, not a finding of fact.