On Feb. 19, President Trump signed an executive order titled “Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ Deregulatory Initiative.” This move by the administration seeks to restructure federal regulations significantly, impacting how federal agencies create and enforce rules. The goal is to reduce bureaucratic overreach and improve government efficiency. The order mandates a comprehensive review of existing regulations, prioritizing the removal of those considered unconstitutional, overly expensive, or hindering national development.

Under this directive, federal agencies have until April 20 to provide a list of identified regulations to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The agencies are tasked with evaluating their regulatory frameworks to ensure alignment with both the law and administration policies. Agencies are instructed to identify and target regulations that are unconstitutional, based on improper delegations of legislative power, impose excessive costs without clear public benefits, harm national interests, or obstruct development in various sectors.

A key aspect of the order is a shift in enforcement priorities. Agencies are directed to scale back or discontinue enforcement actions that conflict with federal statutes, the Constitution, or administration policies. The OMB is responsible for developing plans to either rescind or amend regulations deemed unnecessary or restrictive.

Other Executive Actions on Regulations

This executive order is part of a broader series of regulatory rollbacks under the Trump administration. Other recent executive orders include “Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies,” which directs all agencies, including independent agencies, to submit proposed rules to OIRA before publication, and “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” which directs agencies to repeal 10 existing regulations for each new proposed regulation.

The orders build upon Trump’s previous deregulatory efforts from his first term. For example, the “2-for-1” rule implemented during his first term, which required the elimination of two regulations for every new one introduced, has been expanded. In this term, agencies must adhere to a deregulation requirement that says that for every new rule they propose or finalize, at least 10 existing regulations are repealed.

Impact on HUD

All these actions are working to hinder new regulatory actions and prevent enforcement of regulations that may be viewed as contrary to the administration’s policies, the agencies’ statutory authority, or the Constitution. During Trump’s first term, agencies went through the exercise of publicly collecting regulations to be considered for reform or seeking public comments on regulations that should be considered for such reform. The latest executive order takes a more aggressive stance by requiring agencies to immediately use enforcement discretion regarding identified regulations.

For HUD, the order requires a review of hundreds of programs administered by the agency, potentially leading to major restructuring or budget cuts. Although a federal court has temporarily blocked a separate memo that sought to freeze federal grants, the administration’s intent to reassess HUD funding remains evident. The same “10-for-1” rule applied to other agencies will also affect HUD.

Potential Legal Challenges

As the 60-day review period progresses, HUD will need to navigate the competing demands of implementing the administration’s deregulatory agenda while maintaining its core functions and avoiding legal challenges. The full impact of these changes will become more evident as the agency determines which regulations to target.

It’s likely that the sweeping nature of this deregulation initiative will result in legal challenges, particularly if key rules are repealed without sufficient justification or public input. Agencies attempting to rescind or modify rules could face lawsuits, as such actions typically require a new rulemaking process. This means agencies must issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, gather public comments, and then finalize the new rule.

Failure to follow these procedural requirements could expose the administration’s regulatory rollbacks to legal challenges under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The APA mandates that agencies follow a process of reasoned decision-making when altering or rescinding regulations. If this standard is not met, courts could overturn agency decisions, leading to potential setbacks for the administration’s deregulation agenda.