Opinion - Trump's shortcut rulemaking is shortchanging all of us
The Trump administration is defying these principles. President Trump is rolling back longstanding protections using unlawful shortcuts that shortchange the public's right to provide input and understand how that feedback has shaped federal agency decisions.
Enacted soon after the end of World War II, the Administrative Procedure Act outlines steps that federal agencies must take when they issue or amend regulations, also known as rules. Critically, this process includes soliciting and then responding to significant comments from the public, especially when those rules affect people's rights and responsibilities under federal law.
The Trump administration has jettisoned this established approach to rescind bedrock legal protections for everyday Americans in the dark of night, with almost no explanation.
President Trump signaled his plan to skirt established processes for rulemaking in a presidential memorandum issued on April 9, 'Directing the Repeal of Unlawful Regulations.'
The memorandum accurately recognizes that a federal agency may use an expedited approach under the Administrative Procedure Act if it has 'good cause' to find that the usual process would be 'impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest.'
Indeed, the Administrative Conference of the United States has recognized that expedited processes, such as direct final rules, are appropriate in some instances, such as when the proposed rule changes are noncontroversial. It further underscores the importance of public engagement whenever there is truly 'good cause' to use an expedited approach.
However, the Trump administration is abusing this process by using expedited processes for changes that are clearly controversial.
For example, in May, the U.S. Department of Energy issued four direct final rules related to nondiscrimination protections in federally assisted programs or activities pertaining to general programs, new construction requirements, nondiscrimination on the basis of sex in education and regarding nondiscrimination on the basis of sex in sports.
This means that entities that receive federal funds from the Department of Energy will not have to provide interpretation and translation services when needed. They will not need to eliminate architectural barriers that make buildings inaccessible, nor will they be prohibited from engaging in activities that perpetuate the effects of discrimination.
These direct final rules are part of a broader rollback of longstanding civil rights protections under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other laws, which Trump previewed in his misguided and deceptively titled executive order on Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy.
The Department of Energy's direct final rules on nondiscrimination in federally assisted programs or activities fail the laugh test under the Administrative Procedure Act. As a comment recently filed with the Department of Energy by more than 40 law professors explains, 'The use of direct final rules in these contexts contravenes the clear language of the Administrative Procedure Act, ignores long-established procedures on notice and comment rulemaking, and undermines the role of public participation in government rulemaking.'
Reinforcing this point, another comment filed by nearly 30 civil rights, environmental justice and environmental organizations, together with supporting individuals, underscores how the administration's approach 'violates the procedural mandates of the Administrative Procedure Act and subverts nondiscrimination principles that benefit all Americans.'
In the end, the number of comments the Department of Energy received on its nondiscrimination direct final rules speaks volumes: 19,421 comments regarding nondiscrimination (general provisions), 20,711 comments regarding new construction requirements related to nondiscrimination, 9,293 comments regarding nondiscrimination on the basis of sex in education and 21,264 comments regarding nondiscrimination on the basis of sex in sports.
So what's the harm in allowing the Department of Energy and other federal agencies in the Trump administration to bypass established procedures? The harm is to all of us — the American public.
According to the Attorney General's Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act from 1947, the law seeks to ensure that federal agencies keep the public informed and engage them in rulemaking through uniform processes that are subject to judicial review. These goals remain as true today as they did nearly 80 years ago.
As the United States commemorates the 250th anniversary of the American Revolution, we must remember our founding principles — that a government by the people and of the people must also be accountable to the people. We cannot let the Trump administration shortchange these goals.
Sharmila Murthy is a professor of Law and Public Policy at Northeastern University who previously worked at the White House Council on Environmental Quality.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's tariffs on Canada might be here to stay, U.S. Secretary of Commerce says
With less than two weeks to go for Canada to make a trade deal with the U.S., Prime Minister Mark Carney and the nation's premiers are set to tackle the issue during a three-day meeting in Ontario. As Mackenzie Gray reports, Trump's commerce secretary is making it clear the U.S. is firmly committed to imposing substantial levies if American demands are not met.
New York Post
4 minutes ago
- New York Post
Marco Rubio's sanctions on a key UN antisemite may already be paying dividends
The sanctions Secretary of State Marco Rubio slapped on leading UN antisemite Francesca Albanese this month already may be paying handsome dividends. Just a week later, all three members of a UN Commission of Inquiry set up specifically to clobber Israel — Chairwoman Navi Pillay, Miloon Kothari and Chris Sidoti — quit. That makes the horrific stink at Turtle Bay a bit less awful. Advertisement Albanese certainly deserves Rubio's sanctions. As the UN's Human Rights Council special rapporteur, her job is specifically to slap Israel for its supposed wrongdoing in the Palestinian territories — and she's done that with zest. (Even when the wrongdoing is fake, which is essentially all the time.) She's smeared the Jewish state as a perpetrator of 'genocide,' called Gaza a 'concentration camp' and compared Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Adolf Hitler. Advertisement She's spread antisemitic tropes, belittled the Holocaust and pushed to unseat Israel from the United Nations itself. She blasts the 'Jewish lobby' for ginning up support for Israel — a clear sign of her intolerance for democracy. Indeed, her hatred of Israel runs so deep that she's even vilified American businesses, such as Microsoft and Amazon, that dare to partner with Israel. And accused US tech companies of profiting from Israel's 'genocide,' demanding the International Criminal Court pursue prosecute them and their bosses. Advertisement The three members of the bash-Israel commission were no better. Pillay, a former UN high commissioner of Human Rights, has called Israel an 'apartheid' state and demanded sanctions on it. Kothari worked on a report meant to whitewash Palestinian terrorism as 'resistance' and falsely accuses Jerusalem of 'massacring' and 'ethnically cleansing' Palestinians. Advertisement Alas, their departure won't spell the end of the commission or its antisemitic raison d'être. Nor will it put much of a dent in the UN's pervasive, monomaniacal bias against Israel, from Secretary-General António Guterres on down. But if Rubio's sanctions mean that at least some of the world body's antisemites are beginning to pay a price, they're well worth it.
New York Post
4 minutes ago
- New York Post
NY awarded more than $600M to ‘sanctuary' groups helping defy Trump, federal immigration law
Legal and migrant advocacy groups fighting to block New York from helping the Trump administration enforce US immigration laws have been awarded more than $600 million in taxpayer dollars from the city and state governments, a Post review of contracts revealed. The Bronx Defenders alone has received more than $500 million in city contracts since fiscal year 2018 to provide a host of legal services to poor criminal and civil defendants, including migrants, according to a review of contracts from 2009 to the present. 7 The Bronx Defenders alone has received more than $500 million in city contracts. The Bronx Defenders/ Facebook And the legal aid group raked in another $32 million from the state over the years, records kept by the state comptroller's office show. Other groups were also funneled big bucks as they worked to undermine federal immigration policy, including Make the Road NY — which received $56 million to provide legal, health and other services mostly to immigrants, state and city contract records. The group helped organize a rally at the state Capitol last month urging passage of a sanctuary bill as rally goers chanted, 'No hate, no fear. Immigrants are welcome here.' 7 The legal aid group raked in another $32 million from the state over the years. X / @thenyic The New York Immigration Coalition received $46 million. 'New York City should not be in the business of carrying out Donald Trump's mass disappearance agenda, which is in fact illegal under our local laws,' said Murad Awadeh, executive director of the NYICC, on his X handle @HeyItsMurad. Awadeh also reposted an interview he did with New York Public News Network on May 30. 'Sanctuary policies are public safety measures,' he said. 'They encourage people to participate within our society so that they're able and comfortable enough to report things that are happening and without them, a lot of people won't do that, because they are fearful, and rightfully fearful, especially in the world that we're living in today, that they may end up entrapped in this ICE enforcement that's happening.' 7 Portrait of Murad Awawdeh, CEO of the New York Immigration Coalition. X / @HeyItsMurad Additionally, New Yorker Lawyers for the Public Interest received $19 million, including about $5 million from 2022 to present, city and state records show. The Bronx Defenders have been part of a wider push for a statewide sanctuary bill — the New York for All Act — that would bar state and local law enforcement from cooperating with US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agents. That would include assisting in providing information, turning over or deporting illegal immigrants. Another bill with a push from activists called the Dignity not Detention Act would ban local jails from renting space to ICE to increase their detention capacity for suspected illegal migrants. 7 The New York Immigration Coalition received $46 million. Robert Mecea 'State leaders are not powerless against the federal administration's mass deportation agenda,' the Bronx Defenders said in a June 11 statement on X. 'We have a couple ideas: pass New York For All and Dignity Not Detention now, before it's too late.' The state Senate adjourned for the summer without passing either of the bills. Passage could become a political liability for Democrats who control the state government and US House of Representatives members who are running for office next year, including Gov. Kathy Hochul. 7 New Yorker Lawyers for the Public Interest received $19 million, including about $5 million from 2022 to present. X / @MaketheRoadNY Meanwhile, New York City is slated to spend $75 million on immigration legal services in its new budget, under a spending agreement approved by Mayor Eric Adams and the City Council. That spending plan includes $41.9 million in free legal assistance for migrants facing deportation But politicians who back President Trump's crackdown on illegal immigration fumed that groups helping break federal immigration law are receiving massive taxpayer funding. 'Non-governmental organizations that help shield criminals from deportation should not receive a single penny,' said Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-Staten Island/Brooklyn). 7 New York City is slated to spend $75 million on immigration legal services in its new budget. Robert Mecea 'While I don't have much faith in Governor [Kathy] Hochul and New York Democrats to stop funding left wing groups who work against law enforcement and the interests of citizens, we're taking decisive action on the federal level to end the Biden-Schumer gravy train of years past and put that money towards border security and enforcement to get foreign gangs and criminals out.' Staten Island Borough President Vito Fossella said, 'Hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent to undermine public safety and our immigration laws. They are fighting to protect those who are dangerous criminals. 'It's a poke in the eye to hard working taxpayers. Is the money well spent?. The answer is no.' 7 Politicians who back Trump's crackdown on illegal immigration fumed that groups helping break federal immigration law are receiving massive taxpayer funding. X / @MaketheRoadNY State Conservative Party chairman Gerard Kassar: 'There is no excuse for New York authorities not to cooperate with federal authorities. New Yorkers should not be spending hundreds of millions of dollars on groups fighting to keep illegal aliens in the United States.' The staggering tally comes after an off-duty US Customs and Border Protection agent was shot in the face in New York City during a robbery — with the shooter allegedly an illegal migrant. President Trump also ripped Democrats for flooding 'our Nation with Criminal Invaders.'
