Latest news with #OIRA
Time Business News
3 days ago
- Politics
- Time Business News
The Dual Oversight of Power: Executive and Legislative Control in U.S. Administration
By Jean Richard Franck, M.A., Doctoral Student in Public Administration In the landscape of American democracy, power does not reside in a single person, branch, or institution. It is checked, balanced, and most importantly—shared. Nowhere is this more evident than in the oversight of administrative agencies, where both the executive and legislative branches exercise authority. This shared control is not a tug-of-war. It is a dynamic process—a choreography of law, leadership, and legitimacy. Many people imagine that the President alone controls the agencies of government. After all, the President appoints agency heads, signs executive orders, and shapes the national agenda. But in truth, Congress is the architect. It creates these agencies, defines their scope, and holds the purse strings. One branch steers the ship, the other builds and funds it. Together, they guide the course of governance. Consider the President's tools: executive orders, budget proposals, memoranda, and the authority to nominate (and in some cases, remove) key officials. These powers are formidable. They allow the President to implement change without waiting for legislation. Through the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), the President can even delay or revise agency regulations that don't align with White House priorities. Yet this power, though wide, is not absolute. It is rooted in constitutional and statutory law. Article II of the Constitution vests executive power in the President, and charges him with the faithful execution of the law. That duty sets boundaries. The President cannot legislate, only implement. And while the courts can challenge executive overreach, it is Congress that provides the long-term counterbalance. Congress shapes the administrative state through structural design, delegation, funding, and oversight. It decides which agencies exist, what they do, and how their decisions must be made. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), a cornerstone of modern governance, is a legislative act that mandates transparency, fairness, and public participation in agency rulemaking. Congress doesn't merely create law—it ensures the law is applied as intended. The difference in how these two branches exercise power is profound. The executive acts swiftly. The legislative acts deliberately. The President commands from the center. Congress deliberates through committees and coalitions. One responds to crises with urgency; the other reflects the consensus of a nation. This tension is not dysfunction—it's design. We've seen this interplay throughout history. Presidents have issued bold executive orders to drive environmental policy, economic reform, and public health action. Meanwhile, Congress has investigated those same agencies, reined in budgets, and rewritten authorizing statutes. Sometimes they clash. Sometimes they collaborate. But the system endures, because the balance itself is a form of accountability. As a student of public administration, I see this dual oversight as more than a procedural function. It is a reminder that no one governs alone. Our institutions are complex by intention, not by accident. They are layered, not to confuse, but to protect. Governance in a democracy must be resilient—not only against inefficiency, but against unchecked power. So the next time we read about a regulatory agency drafting a rule, pausing a program, or changing a standard, we should remember: that action is not the product of one decision, but of many. It is the result of oversight, vision, and law—shaped by both executive leadership and legislative design. In that duality, we find the essence of American public administration: governance that is powerful, but never singular. Accountable, but never isolated. Structured, but never static. Jean Richard Franck, M.A. Doctoral Student in Public Administration Writer | Policy Analyst | Advocate for Ethical and Accountable Government TIME BUSINESS NEWS
Forbes
23-04-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Starting This Week, Independent Regulatory Agencies Face White House Review Of Their Regulations
Old Executive Office Building, Washington, DC GovernmentExecutive As of Monday April 21, independent regulatory agencies, which have historically been exempt from White House oversight, must submit their draft regulations to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review before publication. President Trump's Executive Order (EO) 14215, 'Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies,' said that 'these regulatory agencies currently exercise substantial executive authority without sufficient accountability to the President, and through him, to the American people.' Since 1981, OIRA has reviewed the regulations of executive branch departments and agencies (such as the Department of Transportation and Environmental Protection Agency) to provide what President Obama called a 'dispassionate and analytical 'second opinion'' on their actions. It also serves to coordinate across the federal government and with the White House. President Clinton's EO 12866 (1993) continues in effect today but, like President Reagan's order before it, it excluded independent regulatory agencies (such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) from its analytical requirements and interagency review. Trump's new order amends EO 12866 to cover independent agencies, except the Federal Reserve's monetary functions. (Other sections of EO 14215 require additional consultation with OMB and the White House on performance management, budget obligations, and strategic planning.) On April 17, just before the deadline for submitting regulations, OIRA issued guidance to newly covered agencies for complying with the order. The guidance justifies the order with quotes from the writings of George Washington as well as the Supreme Court's opinion in Seila Law that 'the entire 'executive Power' belongs to the President alone.' It refers to the agencies as 'historically independent' and does not appear to offer much flexibility to account for the fact that Congress generally structured them differently than executive departments. Since independent regulatory agencies are usually bipartisan, multi-member commissions whose members hold overlapping terms, some questions may arise. How should these Senate-confirmed officials interact with OMB and the White House? Would OIRA review occur before or after the commission votes on a draft? Would a vote of the commission override recommendations from the interagency review? The guidance is not clear, although it does acknowledge that 'a meeting and vote may be necessary to adopt any changes to the regulatory action resulting from 12866 review.' The 25-page guidance does provide an informative window into how OIRA review is conducted, though. People outside the government see OIRA as a black box, and the guidance offers a clearer picture than I have seen elsewhere on how the review process actually works. For example, it notes that agencies must identify a 'regulatory policy officer' (usually a high-level presidentially-appointed official) and a 'regulatory second' (a high-level career official) to serve as liaison with OIRA. The guidance explains the mechanics of how a regulation is submitted for review, the steps OIRA conducts to begin and facilitate the interagency process, and the types of regulatory impact analysis it expects. In some cases, the speed at which the guidance was put together shows. For example, the list of covered independent regulatory agencies includes the Interstate Commerce Commission, which was abolished 30 years ago. It directs agencies to submit their guidance, as well as regulations, for review, referencing the authority of EO 13891 (2019), which President Biden revoked on his first day in office and President Trump has not reinstated. But overall, it is a useful document that should not only help independent regulatory agencies comply with EO 14215, but may also help the interested public understand how OIRA operates. As of April 23, OIRA does not yet have any independent regulatory agency rules under review. It will take some time for agencies to conduct the supporting analysis to meet the analytical requirements of EO 12866, as research suggests that they generally perform less rigorous analysis of regulatory impacts than agencies subject to OIRA review. And agency staff will likely bristle at the time the review adds to issuing rules (up to 90 days and sometimes longer), as well as the need to justify their proposed actions to OIRA and interagency reviewers. Even so, presidents for more than 40 years have concluded that such review improves regulatory outcomes and makes them more accountable. As I explain in this Planet Money podcast, I expect that will be the case here.
Yahoo
16-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The Paperwork Reduction Act Created a Paperwork Explosion
Legislators love misnomers. The USA PATRIOT Act "increased patriotism" by reducing domestic freedoms. The Inflation Reduction Act increased inflation before our eyes. And since its introduction in 1980, the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) has dramatically increased the amount and complexity of government paperwork. The PRA was last updated in 1995. Websites back then were extremely basic: mostly text with the occasional grainy image that took a full minute to load. There was no concept of online forms or accessing government services over the internet. The Clinton administration had launched a mere seven months earlier, and the federal government did not even begin managing the .gov top-level domain until 1997. The world has changed. Most forms are filled out online—increasingly, on mobile devices. A typical form is not a static set of fields but rather dynamic, showing or hiding questions based on prior responses, enforcing required elements, and ensuring your response meets criteria. Forms are often rigorously tested and tweaked to increase submission rates, with improvements like removing extraneous fields, swapping jargon for plain language, and prefilling known data. Mainstream analytics tools can measure exactly at which field users are pausing or abandoning the page altogether, and many organizations hire user researchers to watch and collect feedback about a form's usability among its target audience. What hasn't changed is the PRA. Still lumbering under a definition of "information technology" from 1949, it forces government agencies to frame information collection as individual static (paper) forms. It threatens employees who want to get feedback from the public. It forces every proposed change, however small, through a rigid process that can take years and adds no value. The PRA even causes the government to break its own laws by making it impossible to meet congressionally mandated deadlines. If you want a smaller government that does less, the PRA does the opposite: It drives the proliferation of more paperwork and stands in the way of efficiencies and subtractions. If you want government to successfully deliver on its mission, whatever that mission may be, the PRA is quietly dragging down the whole ship—and it's time to break free of it. Per the PRA, when a government agency wants to create or update an "information collection"—typically a form, though its grasp has extended to user logins and profiles, customer satisfaction surveys, and user research—the central Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) must approve it first. Approval involves completing forms about the form (which all require several layers of internal agency approval), then submitting that package to an agency's "desk officer." The desk officer's job is to forward the package on to OIRA, a role that the Bobs of Office Space would certainly call into question. Desk officers often contract out this work, though, and prioritize their own efficiencies by submitting one enormous package once a year. A recent submission from the Forest Service contained 151 forms. Once OIRA receives the package, it (eventually) publishes it in the government's newspaper, the Federal Register—a staple at every breakfast table. The proposal must be available for public comment for 60 days. The originating agency then compiles responses to any comments received, though it doesn't have to actually do anything about them. OIRA reviews this package, and the proposal (whether changed or not) is reposted to the Federal Register for 30 more days. After an additional period of OIRA review, it might be approved. This can take years in the worst of circumstances. Approved collections must be reapproved every three years, even if you don't change a thing, generating an endless cycle of paperwork—about paperwork. When I joined the federal government in 2012, navigating the PRA was the first thing I heard about in my onboarding. The PRA was a major barrier to improving veterans' access to benefits and health care when I served as chief technology officer (CTO) of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (V.A.). Reason could run Brickbats only on my experience of the PRA at the V.A. and never run out of content. Some examples: The V.A. disability application form contains all the information necessary to determine V.A. health care eligibility. Instead of having veterans complete two entirely separate (and duplicative) applications, the V.A. proposed adding a simple checkbox to the disability form to also enroll in health care. This would reduce paperwork. After repeated urgent escalations in the face of a mounting health care enrollment backlog, during which an estimated 307,000 veterans died, OIRA responded nearly a year later that the checkbox was a "non-substantive change" that didn't require approval. It took over 180 days to approve adding same-sex partner information to the V.A.'s application for health care after the United States v. Windsor ruling legally required it. It took over 180 days to approve the proof of coverage letter required by the Affordable Care Act for veterans enrolled in V.A. care. The V.A. needed to conduct a study to collect veteran data required for a congressionally mandated report. Final PRA approval was not granted until November 2013—well past the deadline. As part of the paperwork to approve paperwork, agencies must list the number of "burden hours" a form takes—in other words, how long it takes to fill out, including gathering or looking up any necessary information. Does OIRA require them to base this number on the actual amount of time it took people to fill out the form, as observed by agency staff or measured (automatically) by widely available online tools? Nope. Agencies simply make this number up out of thin air. The IRS believes it takes 12 hours a year, including collecting records throughout the year, to file your taxes. I'll leave it to the reader to decide if that's accurate. Sadly, the Federal Register is full of submissions where the amount of time it takes to get the approval exceeds the total burden hours (the estimated completion time, multiplied by the number of expected responses), like this submission from the Department of the Interior for the "Online Eastern Population Sandhill Crane Survey Data Entry Portal" with a total estimated 11 burden hours. One might even argue that OIRA's current implementation of the PRA breaks the very law it's meant to carry out. The legislation lays out 11 intended purposes, including "to minimize the paperwork burden for individuals, small businesses, educational and nonprofit institutions" and "ensure the greatest possible public benefit from and maximize the utility of information created, collected, maintained, used, shared and disseminated by or for the Federal Government." OIRA's process accomplishes exactly zero of these 11 stated intentions. It can't. OIRA has no expertise in technology, user research, usability, or form design. It doesn't even have any agency or subject matter expertise. It also lacks authority. OIRA can lord an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number (OIRA's stamp of approval you will see at the bottom of government forms) over your head, but it can't influence the policies, decisions, and workflows that interact with the information being collected. Nor can OIRA improve, or even see, the databases that store the resulting data. When I was CTO, the V.A. collected a veteran's address hundreds of times and stored it in any one of 83 different databases, none of which were synced. As a result, the agency routinely sent important correspondence to the wrong place and scheduled veterans for exams in the wrong state. OIRA never noticed this, prevented this, or suggested improvements. But when I proposed merging the V.A.'s many forms into one digital "wizard" that would collect only the minimum amount of information absolutely necessary from a veteran, prefill (and allow correction of) existing data, and finally sync data across the V.A.'s disparate backends, OIRA blocked me. I was told I first had to submit every possible permutation of this wizard for public comment—a mathematically impossible quest. This experience was not unique to the V.A. My first federal role was entrepreneur in residence at the Department of Education. There, nearly 50 different higher education grant forms had, over time, developed separate unique identifiers. When it came time to report on general grant information, multiple people had to be hired every year to painstakingly reconcile the identifiers across forms. A simple solution here would be to update every grant form with a single (already existing) identifier—but OIRA shut down this idea by requiring the agency to submit each form as its own separate PRA package. It was less paperwork to continue hiring the temporary full-time workers each year—but way more paperwork and waste overall. In addition to challenges with actual implementation, there are also significant secondary effects regarding the number of activities not taken because of vagueness or fear of the PRA. A cursory review of the Department of Commerce's PRA guidance promises one will have their entire agency budget frozen if they so much as accidentally ask a question without an OMB control number. The federal government knows full well what a hindrance the PRA is. The 21st Century Cures Act, signed into law by President Barack Obama, gave the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services the authority to waive the PRA during a health emergency. President Donald Trump used this waiver authority liberally during the COVID-19 pandemic. If legislators know they have to exempt a program from the PRA in order for it to work, why is it still subjecting us to such heavy-handed bureaucracy? Ironically, despite mostly being an enforcement mechanism for public comment, one of the main harms of the PRA is that it firmly stands in the way of getting feedback from constituents that could improve service delivery and make forms simpler. When I was at the V.A., data showed that almost no veterans applied for health care online; virtually everyone applied on paper. (Paper which, as mentioned earlier, was piling up in a warehouse while veterans died.) The V.A. took this as evidence that veterans didn't use the internet—and, they argued, they had the data to prove it. Rather than argue about it, my team went out and talked to actual veterans who needed health care. This led us to Dominic, a veteran trying to access health care who, it turns out, could use the internet just fine. It was the V.A.'s form that was the problem. He described the OIRA-approved form as "trying to lead you in a back door that's blocked with spikes and IEDs." We designed a new, extremely simple version of the health care form and asked Dominic to give it a whirl. He declared he'd use it "over anything the V.A. had to offer." This was enough for us to launch the form publicly, but we didn't stop there. Further research with more veterans uncovered more challenges. For example, many abandoned the form when asked for their adjusted gross income for the prior tax year. In response, we worked to get that number directly from the IRS and alleviate the need to ask veterans for it in the first place. The ultimate paperwork reduction! As we did this, we were regularly warned that we were breaking the law—violating the PRA by asking questions of the public without running those questions by OIRA first. Many—I would estimate most—government employees would tell you that getting feedback from the public is firmly not allowed without an OMB control number for the conversation. Fear of being sent to "PRA jail" (which is not a thing) for talking to users is regularly mentioned in conversations. I'm a big proponent of change from within. I'm proud of the work we did to improve the veteran experience when I was CTO, including an award-winning digital overhaul that couldn't happen from the outside. I also wrote a book about bureaucracy hacking success stories, most of which recount strategies deployed inside the world's gnarliest bureaucratic behemoths. You might think that sharing stories about the positive, burden-reducing effects of user research would result in OIRA encouraging the practice. You might also think that demonstrating what's possible if burden reduction is really your goal—holistically considering and aligning all information collections, using wizards, thoughtfully reusing known information, ensuring systemwide address updates, and even better accounting for people's real names—would change how the PRA is implemented. But it hasn't. A quiet attempt was made in 2014 to exempt "direct observation" from PRA authority, which changed no one's behavior. Ten years later, OIRA issued a memo, insisting it had been a fan of user research all along. But this memo is meaningless progress; you can see that agencies are still submitting user research plans for OIRA approval as of April 2025. This marks over a decade of internal battles for only one of the many improvements the PRA implementation desperately needs, with virtually no progress—and a great deal of harm—to show for it. Changes from the inside didn't work. Chipping away at the margin didn't work. The PRA has to go. Ultimately, Congress should repeal the PRA entirely. In the meantime, the current legislation includes pilot and delegated authority that would allow the OIRA administrator to declare that as long as agencies self-attest to testing their information collections with their end users, and streamlining information collection when possible—both of which the PRA's current implementation makes virtually impossible—then they are exempt from OIRA review. There is tremendous danger right now that half the country views any activity in the current administration as something to fight against. This should not be one of them. The only proponent of the PRA is inertia. The post The Paperwork Reduction Act Created a Paperwork Explosion appeared first on
Yahoo
22-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Here's what happened during President Donald Trump's 5th week in office
President Donald Trump and his administration continued to advance negotiations with Ukraine and Russia his fifth week in office in an attempt to reach a peace deal to end the conflict between the two countries. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff and National Security Advisor Mike Waltz met with Russian officials in Riyadh Tuesday to discuss ways to end the war, while U.S. Special Envoy for Ukraine and Russia Keith Kellogg met with Ukrainian officials in Kyiv about a peace deal Wednesday. The meetings increased tension between the U.S. and Ukraine when Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy told reporters in Turkey that "nobody decides anything behind our back," claiming Ukraine wasn't invited to the meeting between the U.S. and Russia. Zelenskyy has said that Ukraine won't agree to a deal unless Ukraine is part of the talks. Trump's Frustrations With Zelenksyy Escalate As Us Turns Up Pressure On Ukraine To Reach Peace Deal In response, both Trump and Zelenskyy exchanged barbs. Although Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, Trump insinuated that Ukraine started the war and called Zelenskyy a "dictator." Meanwhile, Zelenskyy claimed Trump was dispersing Russian "disinformation." Even so, the Trump administration has defended its decision to meet with Russia, claiming it's necessary to advance the negotiations. Read On The Fox News App "How are you going to end the war unless you're talking to Russia?" Vice President JD Vance said at the Conservative Political Action Conference near the nation's capital Thursday. "You've got to talk to everybody involved in the fighting. If you actually want to bring the conflict to a close." Here's what also happened this week at the White House: Trump signed an executive order Wednesday requiring federal agencies to assess regulations that could violate the Constitution as the administration seeks to cut red tape. Senior administration officials told Fox News Digital the order is first of its kind and an attempt to ensure the government isn't weaponized against the American people. It will require agencies to submit a list to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) within the next 60 days of all regulations that could be unconstitutional. OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) and the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) will oversee the effort and examine federal agencies' regulations. Trump To Sign Executive Order Instructing Agencies To Hunt Down Regulations That Violate The Constitution DOGE officials at federal agencies will compose an inventory of regulations that could violate the Constitution and deliver the list to OMB. After the 60 days, the OIRA will go through the list of regulations and make individual decisions on which are unconstitutional and will launch the process of repealing the regulations on a case-by-case basis. OIRA oversees executive branch regulations, while the newly created DOGE aims to eliminate government waste, fraud and spending. Trump signed an executive order Tuesday requesting the Domestic Policy Council to examine ways to make in vitro fertilization, known as IVF, more affordable and accessible for Americans. "Americans need reliable access to IVF and more affordable treatment options, as the cost per cycle can range from $12,000 to $25,000," the executive order said. "Providing support, awareness, and access to affordable fertility treatments can help these families navigate their path to parenthood with hope and confidence." 'Promises Kept': Trump Signs Executive Order To 'Aggressively' Make Ivf More Affordable And Accessible The assistant to the president for domestic policy will provide policy recommendations with the goal of "protecting IVF access and aggressively reducing out-of-pocket and health plan costs for IVF treatment" within 90 days. Trump also signed an executive order that ensures taxpayer benefits do not go toward illegal immigrants, in an attempt to better protect the interests of American citizens. The directive requires federal agencies to determine if any federally funded programs are providing financial benefits to illegal immigrants and immediately take "corrective action" so that these federal funds don't bolster illegal immigration. Likewise, the order instructs agencies to implement stricter eligibility verification to ensure that these benefits don't go to those in the U.S. illegally. The order did not identify specific benefits, and notes that illegal immigrants are largely barred from qualifying for welfare programs. However, the order states without providing evidence that past administrations have "repeatedly undercut the goals of that law, resulting in the improper expenditure of significant taxpayer resources." "My Administration will uphold the rule of law, defend against the waste of hard-earned taxpayer resources, and protect benefits for American citizens in need, including individuals with disabilities and veterans," the order states. "President Trump is committed to safeguarding Federal public benefits for American citizens who are truly in need, including individuals with disabilities and veterans," a White House fact sheet on the executive order article source: Here's what happened during President Donald Trump's 5th week in office
Fox News
22-02-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Here's what happened during President Donald Trump's 5th week in office
President Donald Trump and his administration continued to advance negotiations with Ukraine and Russia this week in an attempt to reach a peace deal to end the conflict between the two countries. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff and National Security Advisor Mike Waltz met with Russian officials in Riyadh on Tuesday to discuss ways to end the war, while U.S. Special Envoy for Ukraine and Russia Keith Kellogg met with Ukrainian officials in Kyiv about a peace deal on Wednesday. The meetings increased tension between the U.S. and Ukraine when Ukrainian Volodymyr President Zelenskyy told reporters in Turkey that "nobody decides anything behind our back," claiming Ukraine wasn't invited to the meeting between the U.S. and Russia. Zelenskyy has said that Ukraine won't agree to a deal unless Ukraine is part of the talks. In response, both Trump and Zelenskyy exchanged barbs. Although Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, Trump insinuated that Ukraine started the war and called Zelenskyy a "dictator." Meanwhile, Zelenskyy claimed Trump was dispersing Russian "disinformation." Even so, the Trump administration has defended its decision to meet with Russia, claiming it's necessary to advance the negotiations. "How are you going to end the war unless you're talking to Russia?" Vice President JD Vance said at the Conservative Political Action Conference near the nation's capital on Thursday. "You've got to talk to everybody involved in the fighting. If you actually want to bring the conflict to a close." Here's what also happened this week at the White House: Weeding out unconstitutional regulations Trump signed an executive order Wednesday requiring federal agencies to assess regulations that could violate the Constitution as the administration seeks to cut red tape. Senior administration officials told Fox News Digital the order is first of its kind and an attempt to ensure the government isn't weaponized against the American people. It will require agencies to submit a list to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) within the next 60 days of all regulations that could be unconstitutional. OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) and the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) will oversee the effort and examine federal agencies' regulations. DOGE officials at federal agencies will compose an inventory of regulations that could violate the Constitution and deliver the list to OMB. After the 60 days, the OIRA will go through the list of regulations and make individual decisions on which are unconstitutional and will launch the process of repealing the regulations on a case-by-case basis. OIRA oversees executive branch regulations, while the newly created DOGE aims to eliminate government waste, fraud and spending. Expanding IVF coverage Trump signed an executive order Tuesday requesting the Domestic Policy Council examine ways to make in vitro fertilization, known as IVF, more affordable and accessible for Americans. "Americans need reliable access to IVF and more affordable treatment options, as the cost per cycle can range from $12,000 to $25,000," the executive order said. "Providing support, awareness, and access to affordable fertility treatments can help these families navigate their path to parenthood with hope and confidence." The assistant to the president for domestic policy will provide policy recommendations with the goal of "protecting IVF access and aggressively reducing out-of-pocket and health plan costs for IVF treatment" within 90 days. Ending taxpayer funding for illegal immigrants Trump also signed an executive order that ensures tax-payer benefits do not go toward illegal immigrants in an attempt to better protect the interests of American citizens. The directive requires federal agencies to determine if any federally funded programs are providing financial benefits to illegal immigrants and immediately take "corrective action" so that these federal funds don't bolster illegal immigration. Likewise, the order instructs agencies to implement stricter eligibility verification to ensure that these benefits don't go to those in the U.S. illegally. The order did not identify specific benefits, and notes that illegal immigrants are largely barred from qualifying for welfare programs. However, the order states without providing evidence that past administrations have "repeatedly undercut the goals of that law, resulting in the improper expenditure of significant taxpayer resources." "My Administration will uphold the rule of law, defend against the waste of hard-earned taxpayer resources, and protect benefits for American citizens in need, including individuals with disabilities and veterans," the order states. "President Trump is committed to safeguarding Federal public benefits for American citizens who are truly in need, including individuals with disabilities and veterans," a White House fact sheet on the executive order said.
