Undoing many of the policies of his predecessor is one of President Joe Biden’s top priorities. In early February, Biden even got a little defensive about all the executive actions he was taking in his first days in office to halt policies set by President Donald Trump. “I’m not making new law,” he said Feb. 2. “I’m eliminating bad policy.”
But as easy as it sounds on the campaign hustings or in a 30-second political ad, it’s complicated to overturn rules from earlier administrations. There is one tool, however, that Biden and the Democratic Congress could use to undo the policies the Trump administration left behind. A little-used law called the Congressional Review Act allows a new administration with a like-minded Congress to fast-track the repeal of regulations and other executive actions with simple majority votes in both chambers and no filibuster in the Senate.
So far, though, Congress has made no attempt to use it, and the president has not called for it. And it appears there are no specific plans to do so, at least not on health-related policies.
Time is of the essence when it comes to using the CRA. With a few exceptions, it applies to only those Trump administration policies finalized between Aug. 21, 2020, and Jan. 20, 2021. And it’s available for only the first 60 legislative days — those that either the House or Senate is officially working in Washington — of the new Congress. That end date will likely land sometime in April.
KHN is tracking health regulations, guidance and executive orders implemented during Trump’s term and whether those policies will continue under the Biden administration.
Trump and the GOP-controlled Congress were not shy about using the CRA to eliminate policies implemented by the Obama administration. Between Feb. 14 and May 17, 2017, Congress passed and the president signed rollbacks of 14 regulations, according to the Congressional Research Service. Before 2017, the 1996 law had been used only once — when the new George W. Bush administration and GOP-led Congress repealed a Clinton-era worker safety rule in 2001.
But experts said it’s not surprising that the Democrats haven’t followed that pattern this year.
“The CRA is such a blunt instrument,” said Daniel Pérez, a senior policy analyst at George Washington University’s Regulatory Policy Center. “There are other tools at their disposal.”
Using the act is also risky. Under its provisions, once a policy is repealed, no administration can issue a “substantially similar” regulation. But how similar is too similar? No one knows, and it’s never been tested.
“It’s kind of a legal gray area,” said Pérez.
The Biden administration may well be the one to test that. One regulation repealed by the Republican Congress using the Congressional Review Act in 2017 dealt with the Title X family planning program. The Obama-era rule forbade state health departments from withholding Title X funding as long as organizations were able to provide family planning services. Several states had banned Planned Parenthood affiliates and other clinics that performed abortions from participating in the program. Title X has not, from its inception in 1970, funded abortions, but abortion providers have long participated to provide contraceptive and other health services.
Family planning groups would like to see those state policies blocked once again.
But the failure to use the Congressional Review Act may be about more than just getting organized in time. Many Trump policy changes that Democrats may want to ditch were part of larger regulations that touched a wide variety of subjects and could include policies that Biden’s team wants to keep. But Congress can’t dismiss only part of a rule.
“The nature of health care rule-making is they tend to be omnibus,” said Katie Keith, a health policy researcher and law professor at Georgetown University.
For example, a Jan. 19 regulation finalized by the Trump administration cuts funding for Affordable Care Act marketplace operations and codifies changes that would make it easier for states to create health plans that do not include all the protections offered by the ACA. But those changes are embedded within a much larger regulation required each year to keep the health law operating.
Biden administration officials, rather than try to repeal the entire regulation, will likely rewrite just the pieces they disagree with. That will take significant time and resources. That raises another hurdle the White House has encountered as it tries to change health policy. The Senate has yet to confirm a director for the Office of Management and Budget, and new Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra was sworn in only last week. Both agencies are required for health regulations to proceed.
“My own two cents is this is not the product of a deliberate decision not to use the CRA,” said Sara Rosenbaum, a health law and policy professor at George Washington University. “It’s more a problem with the messiness they have run into with starting up the new administration. They don’t know what they want to do with these rules.”
And the transition period was especially tumultuous. Both the Biden administration and the new Congress were delayed in getting organized. First, Trump refused to concede the election — which sparked a mob attack on the Capitol. Then, once it was official that Biden had won, the Senate — now evenly split, 50-50 — didn’t change hands to Democratic control until Inauguration Day, when Vice President Kamala Harris became the tie-breaking vote. An agreement on how to run the Senate and committees took even longer to negotiate between the Democrats and Republicans. Plus, before two Democratic challengers swept the Jan. 5 Georgia runoffs, most people thought the Senate would remain in Republican hands, so the CRA would not have been a viable option.
Even when Democrats assumed control of the Senate and White House, the early weeks were crowded with an impeachment trial, efforts to get control of the pandemic response and the covid-19 relief bill that passed earlier this month.
It’s not too late for Congress to turn to the Congressional Review Act. Keith said one possible use would be on a last-minute Trump regulation known as the sunset rule. It requires HHS to review 18,000 of its regulations, and those not reviewed within a set period will automatically end. A group of health and other interest groups, led by Santa Clara County in California, sued to block the rule March 9.
But congressional action could be a cleaner way to end the rule. “That strikes me as something the Democrats would like to see never come back again,” said Keith.
Subscribe to KHN’s free Morning Briefing.
Truthout Is Preparing to Meet Trump’s Agenda With Resistance at Every Turn
Dear Truthout Community,
If you feel rage, despondency, confusion and deep fear today, you are not alone. We’re feeling it too. We are heartsick. Facing down Trump’s fascist agenda, we are desperately worried about the most vulnerable people among us, including our loved ones and everyone in the Truthout community, and our minds are racing a million miles a minute to try to map out all that needs to be done.
We must give ourselves space to grieve and feel our fear, feel our rage, and keep in the forefront of our mind the stark truth that millions of real human lives are on the line. And simultaneously, we’ve got to get to work, take stock of our resources, and prepare to throw ourselves full force into the movement.
Journalism is a linchpin of that movement. Even as we are reeling, we’re summoning up all the energy we can to face down what’s coming, because we know that one of the sharpest weapons against fascism is publishing the truth.
There are many terrifying planks to the Trump agenda, and we plan to devote ourselves to reporting thoroughly on each one and, crucially, covering the movements resisting them. We also recognize that Trump is a dire threat to journalism itself, and that we must take this seriously from the outset.
Last week, the four of us sat down to have some hard but necessary conversations about Truthout under a Trump presidency. How would we defend our publication from an avalanche of far right lawsuits that seek to bankrupt us? How would we keep our reporters safe if they need to cover outbreaks of political violence, or if they are targeted by authorities? How will we urgently produce the practical analysis, tools and movement coverage that you need right now — breaking through our normal routines to meet a terrifying moment in ways that best serve you?
It will be a tough, scary four years to produce social justice-driven journalism. We need to deliver news, strategy, liberatory ideas, tools and movement-sparking solutions with a force that we never have had to before. And at the same time, we desperately need to protect our ability to do so.
We know this is such a painful moment and donations may understandably be the last thing on your mind. But we must ask for your support, which is needed in a new and urgent way.
We promise we will kick into an even higher gear to give you truthful news that cuts against the disinformation and vitriol and hate and violence. We promise to publish analyses that will serve the needs of the movements we all rely on to survive the next four years, and even build for the future. We promise to be responsive, to recognize you as members of our community with a vital stake and voice in this work.
Please dig deep if you can, but a donation of any amount will be a truly meaningful and tangible action in this cataclysmic historical moment.
We’re with you. Let’s do all we can to move forward together.
With love, rage, and solidarity,
Maya, Negin, Saima, and Ziggy