Latest news with #ExecutiveOrder12
Yahoo
16-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The Real Danger of Trump's War on Low-Flow Showerheads
Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily. The First Amendment guarantees the public's right to petition the federal government to address wrongs. That fundamental constitutional right helped motivate Congress to secure a role for the public to participate in the federal rulemaking process by submitting written comments on proposed regulations. But now, the Trump administration is threatening to undermine the public comment process like no prior administration has in 80 years. In the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946, Congress required agencies—with only narrow exceptions—to give notice to the public of proposed regulations and provide 'interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rule making through submission of written data, views, or arguments.' Since then, presidents of both parties have valued and promoted the public comment process. In 1981, President Ronald Reagan directed federal agencies to give 'full attention to public comments' to ensure that any 'factual conclusions upon which the rule is based have substantial support.' In 1993, President Bill Clinton's Executive Order 12,866—which remains in effect today—required agencies to afford a 'meaningful opportunity to comment' and specified that the period should usually last at least 60 days. And in 2011, President Barack Obama reaffirmed that 60-day comment periods were essential for the 'open exchange' of information and perspectives among experts, private stakeholders, and the general public. Public comments do more than satisfy the public's right to be heard by their government. The comment process is meant to inform agencies' decisions. As a 2024 report by the White House office that oversees regulatory analyses explains: 'Scientists and researchers may have access to data not otherwise available to agencies. Industries and advocacy groups may have important insights into a particular problem. And individuals may be able to draw on their lived experiences to offer valuable perspectives.' In other words, public comments can lead to more accountable agency decisionmaking, producing more effective and responsive rules. But that works only if agencies are open to receiving new data and alternative views. The Trump administration is increasingly making clear that it is not interested in hearing other viewpoints. The administration has repeatedly invoked questionable reasons to avoid public comments on regulatory proposals. In February, Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared that any agency's actions on immigration and border control 'constitute a foreign affairs function … under the Administrative Procedure Act'—the unstated implication being to shoehorn a broad set of regulatory polices into a narrow statutory exemption to bypass public comment. Last week, President Donald Trump signed an executive order declaring that whenever an agency determines that an existing rule is 'facially unlawful,' it can repeal that rule 'without notice and comment'—a gross distortion of an exception meant to be reserved either for true emergencies or for the most uncontroversial regulatory moves. The same day, another executive order read like a royal proclamation, with Trump commanding an agency to repeal a particular water-efficiency rule and decreeing that 'notice and comment is unnecessary because I am ordering the repeal.' Even when the Trump administration has complied with the 80-year-old norm of providing public notice and comment, they have often afforded the bare minimum. In March, the Department of Health and Human Services proposed a major overhaul of Obamacare eligibility, restricting coverage for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival program recipients, shortening the enrollment period, and complicating the verification process for low-income applicants. By its own calculations, this rule will cause hundreds of thousands of people to lose coverage and will result in net costs of hundreds of millions of dollars per year to state governments and consumers. The amount of time given to the public to comment on these massive changes: just 24 days. (By contrast, the prior 2023 proposed rule covering DACA recipients allowed 59 days of comment, more than twice the length.) Similarly, a rule withdrawing all governmentwide guidance on preparing environmental impact statements under the National Environmental Policy Act allowed written comments for just 31 days, without any public hearings. In fact, that rule was issued as an 'interim final' action, meaning public comments were taken only after the withdrawal already went into effect. (By comparison, the most recent amendments to those rules, finalized in 2024, involved a 60-day comment period, four virtual public meetings, and two Tribal consultations.) The administration's disinterest in hearing from the public seemingly applies only to those with new or different ideas. Federal agencies are all ears when it comes to narrowly defined input that aligns with preestablished White House priorities. Even as the Trump administration has sought to curtail public input on rules on health care, immigration, and environmental protections, agencies have announced multiple new channels for the public to share additional ideas for deregulation. Like-minded proponents of deregulation can share support for cutting existing rules through numerous new channels: a new digital form on the portal; an Office of Management and Budget call for ideas on 'any and all regulations' to rescind; a call for direct messages on X to DOGE; messages to individual agencies as they implement DOGE's 'deregulatory agenda'; or a forthcoming process aimed at removing so-called anti-competitive regulatory barriers. But this radical receptivity to public input is reserved only for comments that fully embrace the administration's deregulatory agenda. Divergent viewpoints need not apply. There's a clear reason why the Trump administration is scared of receiving public comments that challenge its predetermined regulatory preferences. Courts require agencies to respond to significant points raised by public comments, to consider all important aspects of the regulatory issue, and to reasonably explain their ultimate choices. Like ostriches sticking their heads in the sand, officials in this administration seem to hope that by limiting comment opportunities, they can avoid responding to inconvenient facts and arguments. Minimizing or bypassing public comments allows agencies to speed up their deregulatory efforts and to claim they were not aware of defects with their proposals. Agencies are likely banking on some judges either not noticing or not caring. That's not how our regulatory process is meant to work. Public comments are essential to producing effective and accountable agency actions. The Trump administration's misguided and likely illegal attempts to restrict public comment opportunities will be challenged in the courts. Meanwhile, it remains the right and the responsibility of any stakeholder, expert, or member of the public with relevant data or a different viewpoint to submit public comments when they can. If comment periods continue to shrink and the small squadron of traditional public participants in the regulatory process lack the time to submit robust comments on their own, one solution is to expand the roster of commenters. Academic researchers of all disciplines, interest groups big and small, and individuals with lived experience should all do what they can in the limited time provided by agencies to submit comments and help build out the public rulemaking records against which agency decisions will be weighed. In a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, the public cannot allow their vital role in the rulemaking process to be silenced.
CBS News
11-03-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
Tulsi Gabbard says she canceled security clearances for top Biden aides and officials who pursued cases against Trump
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard announced Monday a security clearance review that resulted in the revocations of security clearances for dozens of current and former officials. Gabbard said in a social media post that the security clearance purge targeted top aides to former President Joe Biden, former intelligence personnel who called a 2020 effort to expose information from Hunter Biden's laptop "disinformation," and some who were involved in legal cases against President Trump. "I have revoked security clearances and barred access to classified information for Antony Blinken, Jake Sullivan, Lisa Monaco, Mark Zaid, Norman Eisen, Letitia James, Alvin Bragg, and Andrew Weissman, along with the 51 signers of the Hunter Biden 'disinformation' letter," Gabbard wrote. "The President's Daily Brief is no longer being provided to former President Biden." The revocations are the latest in a campaign that began shortly after Mr. Trump's Jan. 20 inauguration to punish and cut off access to a broad swath of people who the president alleges "weaponized" the nation's court systems against him. This effort has included revocations of security clearance for staff at law firms that contracted with former special counsel Jack Smith and others who advocated for cases against Mr. Trump, such as attorney Andrew Weissmann — who was part of the team led by Robert Mueller that investigated alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election — and Mark Zaid, an attorney who previously represented a whistleblower connected to Mr. Trump's first impeachment. Zaid directed a social media post at Gabbard after her announcement. "Hmmm, so where are my due process protections? You are familiar with Executive Order 12,968, are you not? Still in effect!" Zaid said, referring to a 1995 presidential order establishing a security program for federal employees who work with classified information. A spokesperson for New York Attorney General Letitia James pointed to CBS News to a statement released more than a month ago, when Mr. Trump first announced his plans to claw back security clearances. "What security clearance?" the spokesperson asked. "Anyway, this is just another attempt to distract from the real work the Attorney General is doing to defend the rights of New Yorkers and all Americans." James's office took Mr. Trump to court in 2023, securing a civil judgment that found him liable for fraud and required him to pay nearly half a billion to New York State. Mr. Trump has appealed the judgment. In the weeks since Mr. Trump's return to office, James and other Democratic state attorneys general have filed a steady stream of lawsuits challenging a litany of Mr. Trump's executive orders and policies.
Yahoo
11-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump strips former Biden officials, lawyers who prosecuted him of security clearances
March 10 (UPI) -- National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard said on Monday that dozens of officials from the former Biden administration have had their security clearances revoked and their access to classified information banned. Those stripped of their security clearances on Monday include former top Biden administration officials Antony Blinken, Jake Sullivan, Lisa Monaco, Mark Zaid and Norman Eisen. Others affected include New York Attorney General Letitia James, who secured a civil fraud judgment against Trump, and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who won a criminal election interference case against the president. Andrew Weissman, who investigated Trump's 2016 presidential campaign over alleged collusion with Russia, was also among those named as were the 51 former intelligence officials who signed a letter stating a story involving Biden's son, Hunter Biden, was part of a Russian interference campaign. Gabbard, in a statement, added that former President Joe Biden would also no longer be provided with the President's Daily Briefing. President Donald Trump has repeatedly used his executive powers since returning to the White House six weeks ago to exact retribution against his political adversaries, which he campaigned on. An executive order signed on Jan. 20, Trump's first day in office, directed Gabbard to revoke security clearances for those involved in signing the Hunter Biden-related letter within 90 days, as well as for any who "engaged in inappropriate conduct related to the letter." "Hmmm, so where are my due process protections?" Zaid, a national security lawyer who represented intelligence community whistleblowers, said on X on Monday in response. "You are familiar with Executive Order 12,968, are you not? Still in effect!" Executive Order 12968 of 1995 established a uniform federal personnel security program for employees who are considered for initial or continued access to classified information. Trump has also used executive orders to target law firms linked to his political opponents. On Thursday, he suspended security clearances for lawyers at Perkins Coie, a law firm Trump has attacked over its connections to the 2016 campaign of former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Late last month, he issued a similar directive for lawyers at Covington & Burling over its association with Jack Smith, a former special counsel who twice investigated Trump. Both of those executive orders direct the government to review all contracts it may have with the law firms.
CBS News
10-03-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
Tulsi Gabbard says she canceled security clearances for top aides to former Pres. Biden, those who pursued cases against Trump
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard announced Monday a security clearance review that resulted in the revocations of security clearances for dozens of current and former officials. Gabbard said in a social media post that the security clearance purge targeted top aides to former President Joe Biden, former intelligence personnel who called a 2020 effort to expose information from Hunter Biden's laptop "disinformation," and some who were involved in legal cases against President Trump. "I have revoked security clearances and barred access to classified information for Antony Blinken, Jake Sullivan, Lisa Monaco, Mark Zaid, Norman Eisen, Letitia James, Alvin Bragg, and Andrew Weissman, along with the 51 signers of the Hunter Biden 'disinformation' letter," Gabbard wrote. "The President's Daily Brief is no longer being provided to former President Biden." The revocations are the latest in a campaign that began shortly after Mr. Trump's Jan. 20 inauguration to punish and cut off access to a broad swath of people who the president alleges "weaponized" the nation's court systems against him. This effort has included revocations of security clearance for staff at law firms that contracted with former special counsel Jack Smith and others who advocated for cases against Mr. Trump, such as attorney Andrew Weissmann — who was part of the team led by Robert Mueller that investigated alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election — and Mark Zaid, an attorney who previously represented a whistleblower connected to Mr. Trump's first impeachment. Zaid directed a social media post at Gabbard after her announcement. "Hmmm, so where are my due process protections? You are familiar with Executive Order 12,968, are you not? Still in effect!" Zaid said, referring to a 1995 presidential order establishing a security program for federal employees who work with classified information. A spokesperson for New York Attorney General Letitia James pointed to CBS News to a statement released more than a month ago, when Mr. Trump first announced his plans to claw back security clearances. "What security clearance?" the spokesperson asked. "Anyway, this is just another attempt to distract from the real work the Attorney General is doing to defend the rights of New Yorkers and all Americans." James's office took Mr. Trump to court in 2023, securing a civil judgment that found him liable for fraud and required him to pay nearly half a billion to New York State. Mr. Trump has appealed the judgment. In the weeks since Mr. Trump's return to office, James and other Democratic state attorneys general have filed a steady stream of lawsuits challenging a litany of Mr. Trump's executive orders and policies.
