Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey

Trump administration proposed executive branch reorganization (2017-2021)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
New Administrative State Banner.png
Administrative State
Administrative State Icon Gold.png
Five Pillars of the Administrative State
•Agency control
• Executive control
• Judicial control
•Legislative control
• Public Control
Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia.
Click here to access Ballotpedia's administrative state legislation tracker.
See also: Executive Order 13781 and Presidential reorganization authority

The Trump administration released a report in June 2018 pursuant to Executive Order 13781 that proposed 34 organizational changes to executive agencies. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) estimated that implementation of the full plan would take three to five years. The executive branch had the authority to unilaterally implement 10 to 12 of the proposals, according to OMB. The remaining proposals would have required congressional approval.[1][2][3]

The reorganization plan sought to improve alignment between program administration and agency missions by consolidating and restructuring several agencies as well as shifting the administration of certain federal programs, such as the food stamps program, under different agencies. The full reorganization plan featured 34 proposals aimed at aligning the core missions and responsibilities of executive agencies.

Background

Executive Order 13781

See also: Presidential Executive Order 13781 (Donald Trump, 2017) and Office of Management and Budget

The Trump administration issued Executive Order 13781 on March 13, 2017. The order instructed the OMB director to develop and propose a plan to reorganize the federal executive branch and eliminate unnecessary agencies and programs. The order required the OMB director to seek input on the proposal from the general public and agency officials. E.O. 13781 also instructed the OMB director to consider features such as the redundancy of an agency or program and whether the costs of a government program outweigh its benefits. OMB released the proposed reorganization plan on June 21, 2018.[4]

Upon its release, senior Trump administration officials stated that the reorganization plan aimed to increase the overall efficiency of the executive branch by enacting the broadest changes to the organization of federal agencies since the New Deal. A press release from the Trump administration stated that the reorganization plan sought to "serve as a cornerstone for a productive, bipartisan dialogue around making the Federal Government work for the 21st century.”[5][2]

Reorganization plan

See also: Executive agency and Executive Order 13781

The reorganization plan, titled "Delivering Government Solutions in the 21st Century: Reform Plan and Reorganization Recommendations," sought to align the organizational responsibilities with the core missions of each executive agency. In short, the plan aimed to ensure that executive agency activities function in accordance with the central focus of each agency's mission. Moreover, the plan aimed to address redundant, outdated, or misaligned agency responsibilities in an effort to improve the overall efficiency of the executive branch, according to the Trump administration.[6][5]

The full plan contained 34 proposals to reorganize the structure and responsibilities of executive agencies. The following selected highlights provide an overview of the plan's key proposals:[6]

Text of the plan

The full plan is available below:

Implementation of the reorganization plan

Executive action

The Trump administration had the authority to unilaterally implement 10 to 12 of the reorganization proposals, according to OMB Deputy Director for Management Margaret Weichert. These elements of the plan included proposals aimed at improving customer experience, strengthening the federal cybersecurity workforce, and transferring the federal government's security clearance portfolio. The remaining provisions of the reorganization plan would have required congressional approval. Weichert stated in June 2018 that OMB intended to work through the details of the proposals over the course of the summer before announcing further action.[7][8][3]

Reforming Government Act of 2018

U.S. Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) and U.S. Senator James Lankford (R-Okla.) introduced the Reforming Government Act of 2018 on June 26, 2018. U.S. Representative Jody Hice (R-Ga.) introduced companion legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives, co-sponsored by U.S. Representative Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) and U.S. Representative Paul Mitchell (R-Mich.), on September 12, 2018. Neither bill passed the 115th Congress.[1][7]

The Reforming Government Act would have initiated the reorganization process by granting OMB a two-year window to submit a formal plan to Congress. The OMB plan was required to demonstrate a reduction in the number of federal agencies and associated cost savings. Once the plan was submitted, lawmakers would have had 90 days to either approve of the reorganization proposals or take no action to prevent the plan from moving forward. If Congress had approved the reorganization proposals, OMB estimated that implementation of the full plan would have taken three to five years.[3][9]

One-year update

The Trump administration on June 30, 2019, released a one-year update on the status of the administration’s executive branch reorganization plan.[10]

The update featured the following highlights:

  • "Congress has taken action to consider at least 10 of the proposals, via discussions with Members or staff, hearings, or legislation."[10]
  • "The President’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 Budget included 18 of the reorganization proposals, either in whole or in part."[10]
  • "Agencies are using existing authorities to implement more than 20 of the proposals."[10]

OPM restructuring plan dropped

Acting Office of Personnel Management (OPM) director Michael Rigas on February 6, 2020, sent an email to agency staff stating that the agency no longer planned to merge operations with the General Services Administration (GSA). Rigas stated that “as Congress has not acted on the administration’s legislative proposal, we are no longer devoting time and energy to the merger, and are focused on ensuring OPM can function as a standalone personnel agency for the federal government.”[11]

Responses to the reorganization plan

Linda Springer, former director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) during the George W. Bush (R) administration, expressed the following concerns to Government Executive regarding the proposed restructuring of the OPM under the reorganization plan:[12]

“ 'It certainly wasn’t what I had hoped they would come up with for OPM,' she said. Reducing the agency to a policy shop, she explained, would undermine the fundamental purpose of the agency.


'First and foremost, I believe in a central personnel agency,' Springer said. Such an entity creates a 'firewall between the agency and the political personnel at the White House as it relates to personnel practices, particularly hiring and other actions, to be sure the oversight for compliance for merit systems principles is handled independently.'

The Trump administration’s plan 'at a minimum creates a perception that firewall is gone,' Springer said. 'That’s something I find very troubling.'[13]

”


Robert Shea, former OPM associate director during the George W. Bush administration, commented to Government Executive that the OPM restructuring could be beneficial by narrowing the focus of agency operations:[12]

“ That office would be able to focus better, since the leadership won’t be spending time on the background investigations process or its consulting services to agencies. ... As far as effectiveness is concerned, I don’t think [other White House offices like] the Office of Federal Procurement Policy or Federal Financial Management or eGov, I don’t think those areas have been vastly improved because of that focus. But there’s a logic to it.[13] ”


Timothy D. Lytton, a law professor at Georgia State University, observed that the consolidation of federal food safety programs may have little practical impact in the absence of targeted legislative action:[14]

“ Merely merging the 5,000 food safety officials in the FDA and the 9,200 officials in the FSIS under the oversight of a single administrator would not eliminate the differences in jurisdiction, powers and expertise responsible for the current bureaucratic fragmentation. Meaningful consolidation would require a complete overhaul of federal food safety laws and regulations, a task of extraordinary legal and political complexity.[13] ”


Aubrey Neal, federal affairs manager of the American Institutions Network and a policy analyst for the R Street Institute, offered broad support for the reorganization plan in an opinion piece for The Hill:[15]

“ There are many legacies this administration is likely to leave behind. But, if acted on, these recommendations may be of greatest benefit to America’s long-term institutional health. In a time when congressionally fostered accountability is lacking, this administration is signaling that it will not only help Congress in reigning in agency mission-creep, it will provide the roadmap. This is both a call for celebration and a call for members of Congress to step up to the plate.[13] ”


See also

External links

Footnotes

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 GovTrack, "S. 3137 (115th): Reforming Government Act of 2018," accessed March 22, 2019
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Reuters, "White House proposes merging Labor, Education departments," June 21, 2018
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Federal News Radio, "OMB’s Weichert attempts to ease lawmakers’ concerns about OPM reorganization," June 27, 2018
  4. ↑ Federal Register, "Executive Order 13781: Comprehensive Plan for Reorganizing the Executive Branch," March 16, 2017
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 WhiteHouse.gov, "President Donald J. Trump Is Reforming the Federal Government, Making it More Efficient, Effective, and Accountable," June 21, 2018
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 WhiteHouse.gov, "Delivering Government Solutions in the 21st Century," accessed June 25, 2018
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 Federal News Radio, "Bill authorizing government reorganization now has a House companion," September 20, 2018
  8. ↑ Federal News Radio, "Senate Democrats warn of ‘food fight’ over government reorganization without legislative buy-in," July 18, 2018
  9. ↑ Government Executive, "Senators Look to Give Trump Authority to Reform and Reorganize Government," June 29, 2018
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 Performance.gov, "One Year Update: Reform Plan & Reorganization Recommendations," June 20, 2019
  11. ↑ Global Government Forum, "Plans to break up US federal HR agency abandoned," February 11, 2020
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 Government Executive, "Proposed OPM Reorganization Draws Widespread Criticism," June 22, 2018
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 13.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
  14. ↑ The Conversation, "Trump’s new plan to consolidate federal food safety efforts won’t work. Here’s why," June 24, 2018
  15. ↑ The Hill, "Clarifying the power of federal agencies could offer Trump a lasting legacy," June 21, 2018
v • e
The Administrative State
MainThe Administrative State Project Badge.png
Pillars
Reporting
Laws
Administrative Procedure Act • Antiquities Act • Civil Service Reform Act • Clayton Antitrust Act • Communications Act of 1934 • Congressional Review Act • Electronic Freedom of Information Act • Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 • Federal Housekeeping Statute • Federal Reserve Act • Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 • Freedom of Information Act • Government in the Sunshine Act • Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 • Information Quality Act • Interstate Commerce Act • National Labor Relations Act • Paperwork Reduction Act • Pendleton Act • Privacy Act of 1974 • Regulatory Flexibility Act • REINS Act • REINS Act (Wisconsin) • Securities Act of 1933 • Securities Exchange Act of 1934 • Sherman Antitrust Act • Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act • Truth in Regulating Act • Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Cases
Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner • A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States • Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp • Auer v. Robbins • Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe • Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Standard Oil Company of California • Field v. Clark • Food and Drug Administration v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation • Humphrey's Executor v. United States • Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) v. Chadha • J.W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United States • Lucia v. SEC • Marshall v. Barlow's • Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency • Mistretta v. United States • National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius • National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning Company • National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. • Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan • Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation • Skidmore v. Swift & Co. • United States v. Lopez • United States v. Western Pacific Railroad Co. • Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board • Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Wayman v. Southard • Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service • Whitman v. American Trucking Associations • Wickard v. Filburn • Wiener v. United States
Terms
Adjudication (administrative state) • Administrative judge • Administrative law • Administrative law judge • Administrative state • Arbitrary-or-capricious test • Auer deference • Barrier to entry • Bootleggers and Baptists • Chevron deference (doctrine) • Civil servant • Civil service • Code of Federal Regulations • Codify (administrative state) • Comment period • Compliance costs • Congressional Record • Coordination (administrative state) • Deference (administrative state) • Direct and indirect costs (administrative state) • Enabling statute • Ex parte communication (administrative state) • Executive agency • Federal law • Federal Register • Federalism • Final rule • Formal rulemaking • Formalism (law) • Functionalism (law) • Guidance (administrative state) • Hybrid rulemaking • Incorporation by reference • Independent federal agency • Informal rulemaking • Joint resolution of disapproval (administrative state) • Major rule • Negotiated rulemaking • Nondelegation doctrine • OIRA prompt letter • Organic statute • Pragmatism (law) • Precautionary principle • Promulgate • Proposed rule • Publication rulemaking • Regulatory budget • Regulatory capture • Regulatory dark matter • Regulatory impact analysis • Regulatory policy officer • Regulatory reform officer • Regulatory review • Rent seeking • Retrospective regulatory review • Risk assessment (administrative state) • Rulemaking • Separation of powers • Significant regulatory action • Skidmore deference • Statutory authority • Substantive law and procedural law • Sue and settle • Sunset provision • Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions • United States Code • United States Statutes at Large
Bibliography
Agencies
Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Trump_administration_proposed_executive_branch_reorganization_(2017-2021)&oldid=10301659"