Other real quotes which have pretty much 0 discussion going on about it from Project 2025:
The next President should also reinstate the many executive orders signed by President Trump that were designed to make the regulatory process more just, efficient, and transparent. Executive Orders 13771, 13777, 13891, 1892, 1893, 13979 Section 6, 13979 and 1390 should be revived (with modifications as needed). Executive Order 13132 on federalism should be strengthened so that state regulatory and fiscal operations are not commandeered by the federal government through so-called cooperative federalism programs. Additionally, the President should revise and sign an updated version of President Ronald Reagan’s Executive Order 12630 on federal takings.
But what does this mean? You have to go look up all of those orders to know what they're about. That's a lot of work! And boring! But most people probably don't care enough to research to summarize what these bills are. Guess who did it for you? Should you trust it? No, I think you should just look up the bills yourself:
Info regarding these specific executive orders, here are overviews:
Executive Order 13771, issued by President Donald Trump on January 30, 2017, is known as the "Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs" order. The order requires federal agencies to eliminate two existing regulations for every new regulation they propose. Additionally, it sets a budget for regulatory costs, mandating that the total incremental cost of all new regulations, including those repealed, should be zero or less for the fiscal year. The goal of EO 13771 was to reduce the overall regulatory burden on businesses and stimulate economic growth.
Executive Order 13777, issued by President Donald Trump on February 24, 2017, established regulatory reform officers and regulatory reform task forces within federal agencies. The purpose of this order was to implement and enforce regulatory reform initiatives and policies, including Executive Order 13771, which required agencies to eliminate two regulations for every new one proposed. These task forces were responsible for identifying regulations for repeal, replacement, or modification to reduce regulatory burdens on the American people. The order aimed to streamline government regulations and reduce costs.
Executive Order 13891, issued by President Donald Trump on October 9, 2019, directs federal agencies to improve the transparency and accessibility of guidance documents. It requires agencies to create a centralized, searchable online database for all guidance documents, making them publicly accessible. The order also ensures that these documents cannot be used to impose new, binding requirements on the public unless they undergo a formal rulemaking process. This prevents agencies from using guidance as de facto regulations without proper oversight and public participation.
One of the most famous guidance documents is the "Dear Colleague Letter" issued by the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights in 2011. This document provided guidance on how educational institutions should address sexual violence under Title IX, a federal law prohibiting sex-based discrimination in schools. It clarified the responsibilities of schools to prevent and respond to sexual harassment and assault, significantly influencing how colleges and universities handled such cases. This guidance sparked widespread debate and led to changes in how schools approach Title IX compliance.
This is that letter:
April 4, 2011
Dear Colleague:
Education has long been recognized as the great equalizer in America. The U.S. Department of Education and its Office for Civil Rights (OCR) believe that providing all students with an educational environment free from discrimination is extremely important. The sexual harassment of students, including sexual violence, interferes with students’ right to receive an education free from discrimination and, in the case of sexual violence, is a crime.
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681 et seq., and its implementing regulations, 34 C.F.R. Part 106, prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs or activities operated by recipients of Federal financial assistance. Sexual harassment of students, which includes acts of sexual violence, is a form of sex discrimination prohibited by Title IX. In order to assist recipients, which include school districts, colleges, and universities (hereinafter “schools” or “recipients”) in meeting these obligations, this letter
1 explains that the requirements of Title IX pertaining to sexual harassment also cover sexual violence, and lays out the specific Title IX requirements applicable to sexual violence.
2 Sexual violence, as that term is used in this letter, refers to physical sexual acts perpetrated against a person’s will or where a person is incapable of giving consent due to the victim’s use of drugs or alcohol. An individual also may be unable to give consent due to an intellectual or other disability. A number of different acts fall into the category of sexual violence, including rape, sexual assault, sexual battery, and sexual coercion. All such acts of sexual violence are forms of sexual harassment covered under Title IX.
The statistics on sexual violence are both deeply troubling and a call to action for the nation. A report prepared for the National Institute of Justice found that about 1 in 5 women are victims of completed or attempted sexual assault while in college.3 The report also found that approximately 6.1 percent of males were victims of completed or attempted sexual assault during college.4 According to data collected under the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security and Campus Crime Statistics Act (Clery Act), 20 U.S.C. § 1092(f), in 2009, college campuses reported nearly 3,300 forcible sex offenses as defined by the Clery Act.5 This problem is not limited to college. During the 2007-2008 school year, there were 800 reported incidents of rape and attempted rape and 3,800 reported incidents of other sexual batteries at public high schools.6 Additionally, the likelihood that a woman with intellectual disabilities will be sexually assaulted is estimated to be significantly higher than the general population.7 The Department is deeply concerned about this problem and is committed to ensuring that all students feel safe in their school, so that they have the opportunity to benefit fully from the school’s programs and activities.
This letter begins with a discussion of Title IX’s requirements related to student-on-student sexual harassment, including sexual violence, and explains schools’ responsibility to take immediate and effective steps to end sexual harassment and sexual violence. These requirements are discussed in detail in OCR’s Revised Sexual Harassment Guidance issued in 2001 (2001 Guidance).8 This letter supplements the 2001 Guidance by providing additional guidance and practical examples regarding the Title IX requirements as they relate to sexual violence. This letter concludes by discussing the proactive efforts schools can take to prevent sexual harassment and violence, and by providing examples of remedies that schools and OCR may use to end such conduct, prevent its recurrence, and address its effects. Although some examples contained in this letter are applicable only in the postsecondary context, sexualharassment and violence also are concerns for school districts. The Title IX obligations discussed in this letter apply equally to school districts unless otherwise noted.
Title IX Requirements Related to Sexual Harassment and Sexual Violence
Schools’ Obligations to Respond to Sexual Harassment and Sexual Violence
Sexual harassment is unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature. It includes unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, nonverbal, or physical conduct of a sexual nature. Sexual violence is a form of sexual harassment prohibited by Title IX.9
As explained in OCR’s 2001 Guidance, when a student sexually harasses another student, the harassing conduct creates a hostile environment if the conduct is sufficiently serious that it interferes with or limits a student’s ability to participate in or benefit from the school’s program. The more severe the conduct, the less need there is to show a repetitive series of incidents to prove a hostile environment, particularly if the harassment is physical. Indeed, a single or isolated incident of sexual harassment may create a hostile environment if the incident is sufficiently severe. For instance, a single instance of rape is sufficiently severe to create a hostile environment.10
Title IX protects students from sexual harassment in a school’s education programs and activities. This means that Title IX protects students in connection with all the academic, educational, extracurricular, athletic, and other programs of the school, whether those programs take place in a school’s facilities, on a school bus, at a class or training program
Executive Order 13892, issued by President Donald Trump on October 9, 2019, aims to ensure fairness in administrative enforcement and adjudication within federal agencies. The order requires that agencies provide clear guidance on the laws they enforce and not use non-public or unpublished guidance documents as the basis for enforcement actions. It emphasizes the importance of transparency and accountability, ensuring that individuals and businesses have access to clear and consistent information about what is required to comply with the law. Executive Order 13892 was revoked by President Joe Biden on January 20, 2021, through Executive Order 13992. President Joe Biden justified revoking Executive Order 13892 by arguing that it imposed unnecessary constraints on the discretion of federal agencies to enforce regulations effectively. The revocation was part of a broader effort to ensure that agencies could fully exercise their statutory authority and make decisions based on expertise and public interest without being overly restricted by the procedural requirements established by the Trump administration. Biden's administration sought to restore flexibility and responsiveness in regulatory enforcement and adjudication processes. Critics of the revocation argue that transparency is essential, while supporters believe agencies need discretion to act efficiently. The debate centers on balancing transparency with regulatory efficiency.
Executive Order 13893, issued by President Donald Trump on October 10, 2019, focused on promoting high-quality healthcare choices and improving the transparency and quality of healthcare services provided to Medicare beneficiaries. The order aimed to empower Medicare beneficiaries by improving access to information about the quality and price of healthcare services and by expanding access to affordable care. It also directed agencies to eliminate unnecessary burdens and promote competition among healthcare providers to enhance the quality and efficiency of care. It directed the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to expand access to data about healthcare quality and costs, allowing beneficiaries to make more informed decisions.
The order encouraged the removal of unnecessary regulations that might impede access to affordable care and promoted competition among healthcare providers. Additionally, it sought to align Medicare payments with value and quality, rather than the volume of services, to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of healthcare delivery.
One concrete example of how data was provided to help Medicare beneficiaries make more informed decisions could be the publication of hospital procedure prices and quality ratings. For instance, if a patient needed a knee replacement, they could access a Medicare database that lists the cost of the procedure at different hospitals, alongside patient satisfaction scores and surgical success rates. This transparency would enable beneficiaries to choose a hospital that offers the best combination of cost and quality, empowering them to make informed healthcare decisions.
When this order was effectively rolled back as part of broader regulatory changes under the Biden administration, the specific initiatives tied to this order were not necessarily dismantled but rather integrated into ongoing healthcare reforms. Tools like Medicare's Hospital Compare still exist, continuing to offer beneficiaries access to essential healthcare data. The impact of the revocation primarily concerns the shift in focus from Trump's transparency-driven agenda to broader health policy priorities under Biden.
Executive Order 13924, issued by President Donald Trump on May 19, 2020, aimed to provide regulatory relief to support economic recovery during the COVID-19 pandemic. Section 6 of the order specifically instructed federal agencies to consider exercising enforcement discretion, meaning they were encouraged to consider fairness in applying regulations, especially where compliance was hindered by the pandemic. It also emphasized the importance of providing clarity and guidance to regulated entities during the economic recovery. The goal was to avoid imposing undue burdens on businesses during a challenging time.
This means that if a business was unable to fully comply with certain regulations due to pandemic-related disruptions, agencies were encouraged to be more lenient or flexible in their enforcement. The goal was to avoid penalizing businesses harshly for circumstances beyond their control, promoting a more understanding and supportive approach during the economic recovery.
For example, if a business was unable to meet certain deadlines for environmental reporting due to disruptions caused by the pandemic, the relevant agency might exercise discretion in enforcing penalties, allowing more time or providing alternative compliance options. This approach was meant to help businesses navigate the challenges posed by the pandemic without facing overly harsh penalties for non-compliance.
Executive Order 13980, issued by President Donald Trump on January 19, 2021, is titled "Protecting Americans From Overcriminalization Through Regulatory Reform." The order aimed to ensure that individuals and businesses are not unfairly penalized for unintentional violations of complex regulations. It directed federal agencies to review their regulations to identify any that could lead to overcriminalization and to consider reforms that would ensure that only willful violations of clear legal obligations would be subject to criminal penalties. This order was part of a broader effort to reduce regulatory burdens and promote fairness in the enforcement of federal laws.
For example, if a small business inadvertently failed to file a required environmental report due to a misunderstanding of complex regulations, EO 13980 would encourage agencies to refrain from treating this mistake as a criminal offense. Instead, the order promoted using civil penalties or corrective actions, reserving criminal penalties for willful, knowing violations of clear legal obligations.
Executive Order 13979, issued by President Donald Trump on January 18, 2021, is titled "Ensuring Democratic Accountability in Agency Rulemaking." The order was intended to increase political accountability in the federal rulemaking process by requiring that only agency heads, who are politically appointed and thus accountable to the President, can issue binding rules. It aimed to prevent career civil servants from enacting significant regulatory changes without direct oversight from politically accountable leaders, ensuring that elected officials have more control over the regulatory process.
Constitutional lawyers are divided on the implications of Executive Order 13979. Some argue that it potentially overleverages executive power by centralizing rulemaking authority within politically appointed agency heads, which could undermine the checks and balances intended by the Founding Fathers. They contend that this shift could erode the nonpartisan role of career civil servants in developing regulations, increasing the risk of political influence over what should be objective regulatory decisions. Critics see this as a departure from the intent of the Constitution, which emphasizes a balance of powers among the branches of government.
Supporters, however, argue that the order ensures greater accountability in the regulatory process, as politically appointed officials are directly answerable to the President and, by extension, to the electorate. They believe this approach aligns with democratic principles by ensuring that significant regulatory decisions are made by individuals who are subject to political oversight.
Executive Order 13132, issued by President Bill Clinton on August 4, 1999, is titled "Federalism." This order outlines the principles and guidelines for federal agencies when formulating and implementing policies that affect state and local governments. It emphasizes the importance of respecting the rights of states and the role of state and local governments in the federal system. The order requires federal agencies to consult with state and local governments in the development of regulations that might have a substantial direct effect on them and to minimize federal overreach into areas traditionally managed by states. The goal is to ensure that federal actions do not unduly interfere with state and local government functions, promoting a balance between federal and state powers.
Executive Order 12630, issued by President Ronald Reagan on March 15, 1988, is titled "Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights." The order establishes guidelines for federal agencies to follow in order to avoid actions that might result in the taking of private property without just compensation, as required by the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It ensures that agencies consider the potential impact of their regulations and actions on private property rights and seek to minimize any undue burdens on property owners.
Executive Order 12630 is relevant in situations where federal government actions might impact private property rights, potentially leading to what is known as a "regulatory taking." For instance, if the government imposes zoning laws that significantly limit how a property owner can use their land, or enforces environmental regulations to protect wetlands or endangered species habitats, it could restrict the owner's ability to develop their property. In such cases, the order ensures that federal agencies carefully assess the impact on property rights, aiming to avoid or provide compensation for undue burdens on property owners. This includes situations where regulations so severely limit property use that it effectively constitutes a taking, even without physical appropriation.
---
Or how about this quote?
The next President should strengthen implementation of the Information Quality Act, robustly use the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act, carefully enforce the Privacy Act and ensure the sound execution of OIRA’s statistical and other information policy functions. Regulatory cooperation agreements can also promote the further adoption of good regulatory practices, which improve market conditions for America and her allies. OIRA should also work with other components of OMB to revise and apply OMB’s uniform Guidance for Grants and Agreements and ensure that federal contract and grant guidelines satisfy EO 12866 and other centralized standards as appropriate.
But what does any of that mean? Again, you have to research, look up the bills, understand them.
Or
Finally, the next President should work with Congress to maximize the utility of the Congressional Review Act (CRA), which allows Congress to undo midnight regulatory actions (including those disguised as “guidance”) on an accelerated timeline. To leverage the CRA’s power to the maximum extent, Congress and the President should enact the Midnight Rules Relief Act, which would help to ensure that multiple regulatory actions could be packaged and voted on at the same time. Immediate and robust use of the CRA would allow the President to focus his rulemaking resources on major new regulatory reforms rather than devoting months or years to undoing the final rulemakings of the Biden Administration.
This one I really like, actually, and I agree that it should be done. The Midnight Rules Relief Act is a piece of legislation aimed at curbing the practice of outgoing presidential administrations issuing a flurry of regulations—referred to as "midnight regulations"—in the final weeks of their term. This practice has often been criticized as a way for departing administrations to push through policies without sufficient oversight, knowing that the incoming administration might oppose them but may have difficulty immediately reversing them.
So while I'm not denying the social issue stuff you're talking about is in this, the document is so much more and I find it real frustrating that people just wanna take their salacious soundbites rather than comprehend how nicely outlined this document is and how, as far as I can tell, nothing comparable really exists for the opposite political party branch. I like blueprints.
