Reformers Warned Against Adding Ineffective Procedural Hurdles
Government reformers are urged to avoid creating new procedural requirements that may backfire. Historical examples show such rules often add delay without enhancing decision quality. The piece advises a careful assessment of potential unintended consequences.
The article's central argument is that procedural safeguards, while intended to protect integrity, can create unintended operational friction. The Clean Air Act example shows how transparency requirements for interagency review comments led to oral-only communication, scheduling delays, and staffing bottlenecks, while offering minimal transparency benefit since bad actors could bypass the process entirely.
The Information Quality Assurance Act of 2024, which passed the House with bipartisan support, is cited as a comparable case. It would have required agencies to docket every study cited in rulemaking, despite agencies already being obligated to explain and publicize their reasoning. The piece suggests such requirements add process steps without meaningfully improving decision quality.
This analysis could influence how reform advocates approach rebuilding procedural safeguards after the Trump administration's actions. If reformers heed these warnings, they may design more targeted, flexible mechanisms rather than blanket procedural mandates. The affected parties include federal agencies, regulated industries, and the public, who could see either streamlined or more cumbersome rulemaking processes. The piece suggests that poorly designed reforms may ultimately weaken public trust by creating delay without accountability, potentially leaving government decisionmaking more vulnerable to future abuse.