OMB Issues Guidance to Streamline Deregulatory Action Review

If federal rulemaking were a theme park, OIRA (the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs) is the checkpoint where you empty your pockets,
take off your belt, and convince everyone you’re not carrying a 200-page surprise. And if you’ve ever watched that line crawl, you know why the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) just rolled out guidance meant to move deregulatory actions through review fasterless “please step aside,”
more “next!”

The headline: OMB issued a memorandum instructing agencies and OIRA to speed up review of deregulatory actionsespecially when agencies argue a rule
is “facially unlawful” or when the agency has built a factual record that supports rolling something back. In plain terms, the memo tries to turn
deregulation from a multi-season drama into a limited series. Whether that’s efficiency or chaos (or both) depends on where you sit: regulator,
regulated, advocate, or a normal person who just wants the government to stop changing the instructions mid-assembly.

What OMB Actually Issued (and Why It Matters)

The memo in one sentence

The guidanceOMB Memorandum M-25-36, “Streamlining the Review of Deregulatory Actions”sets shorter, “presumptive” review timelines at OIRA and
encourages agencies to treat certain procedural and consultation requirements as generally less relevant when the government is deregulating rather
than regulating.

The deregulatory backdrop: “move fast” meets “lawful governance”

Deregulatory policy didn’t start with this memo. What’s new is the attempt to operationalize speed: tighter clocks, fewer side quests, and a bigger
push to classify some existing rules as plainly inconsistent with statutory or constitutional limits. The memo explicitly ties its purpose to a
broader deregulatory agenda that emphasizes (1) removing rules viewed as unlawful under recent legal doctrine and (2) accelerating rollback efforts
that still need a solid administrative record.

How the Guidance Streamlines Deregulatory Review

1) A faster OIRA clock: 28 days (or 14) as the new “default”

The most attention-grabbing change is time. Historically, centralized review under the framework most people associate with OIRA review can run long,
especially for complex rules or high-stakes policies. The memo introduces presumptive maximum timelines designed specifically for deregulatory actions:
28 days for deregulatory actions backed by a factual record and 14 days for actions targeting rules deemed “facially unlawful.”

“Presumptive” is doing a lot of work here. It’s not an automatic green light if the clock runs out, and OIRA can still take longer for technically
complex or litigation-magnet actions. But as a practical matter, a default expectation of weeks instead of months reshapes agency planning, stakeholder
engagement, and the odds that you’ll wake up to a major rollback announcement before your coffee cools.

2) The “facially unlawful” lane (and the temptation of shortcuts)

The memo creates a special fast lane for rescinding or revising rules an agency believes are unlawful on their facemeaning the legal problem is
apparent from the text of the regulation, the statute it implements, and established sources of law. The guidance points agencies toward using the
Administrative Procedure Act’s “good cause” exception to skip notice-and-comment in appropriate circumstances for direct repeal.

Think of this as the government’s version of “this product is obviously defective, recall it now.” In the memo’s framing, if the core dispute is
purely legalwhether the rule aligns with the best reading of the statutethen the agency can argue that normal notice-and-comment steps are
unnecessary for the repeal decision. Critics counter that “good cause” is supposed to be rare and narrow, and that treating legal disagreement as an
emergency bypass risks shrinking public participation precisely when stakes are high.

3) Fewer “extra checklists” for deregulation

Federal rulemaking doesn’t just involve the APA. Layers of executive orders and analytic requirements often add consultation steps or specialized
analysesfederalism, tribal consultation, takings, energy impacts, small entity considerations, and more.

The memo’s approach: when agencies are deregulating, they can generally presume these additional requirements are not triggered, or can be handled
through the ordinary mix of OIRA interagency review and the APA’s comment process. In the guidance’s logic, deregulation usually relieves burdens rather
than imposes new ones, so some of the classic “before you regulate, consider X” frameworks may be less relevant.

Supporters call this common sense. Opponents see it as an intentional narrowing of consultationparticularly around tribal engagementby treating public
comment as a catch-all. Either way, it’s a meaningful procedural signal: agencies are being told to consolidate, streamline, and avoid duplicative
process when rolling rules back.

4) Record-building still mattersjust build it like you mean it

The memo does not pretend that every rollback can be done on vibes and a highlighter. It repeatedly emphasizes that many deregulatory actions still
require reasoned decision-making and a defensible recordespecially when policy judgments, tradeoffs, or factual disputes are in play.

A key theme is cost-benefit analysis: agencies should quantify when possible, but also recognize when the relevant benefits or values are better
captured qualitatively. The memo even offers illustrative contrasts: some rules lend themselves to clean quantification (cost of compliance vs. measured
harms), while others implicate values that don’t neatly fit into a spreadsheet. The point isn’t “always quantify” or “never quantify”it’s “don’t avoid
quantification when it’s feasible, and don’t fake precision when it isn’t.”

So What Changes in Practice?

Agencies: tighter timelines mean tighter project management

For agencies, the memo is a workflow document as much as a policy statement. A shorter OIRA window increases the value of doing the hard work earlier:
assembling a complete submission, anticipating interagency questions, and deciding upfront whether a deregulatory action is primarily legal (the “facially
unlawful” route) or policy-and-fact heavy (the “build the record” route).

In other words, if you show up to OIRA with a half-packed suitcase, you shouldn’t be surprised when the TSA line becomes your new home address.
Agencies that want faster review will need cleaner packages: clear legal theories, organized evidence, and a narrative that can survive both interagency
critique and judicial review.

Businesses: opportunity for reliefplus a new kind of whiplash

For regulated industries, faster deregulatory action review can mean quicker relief from compliance obligations, reporting burdens, permitting friction,
or restrictions that firms believe are outdated. It can also mean more uncertainty, because rapid changes are often followed by litigation, injunctions,
or later administrations reversing course again.

Practically, companies may need to:

• Monitor rulemaking more actively because the engagement window can be shorter.
• Submit better data faster to influence which rules are prioritized for rollback and how the record is built.
• Plan for parallel tracks: compliance strategy plus litigation risk plus contingency planning if a rollback is challenged.

A real-world example: imagine a sector where compliance requires new equipment, training, and audits. If a rollback arrives faster, businesses may pause
investmentsuntil a court stays the rollback, at which point everyone scrambles again. Speed can reduce burdens, but it can also increase volatility.

Public interest groups: participation concerns and “who gets heard” questions

Streamlining always raises the “streamlined for whom?” question. Critics argue that compressing review timelines and encouraging “good cause” reliance
can reduce meaningful public inputespecially for communities without full-time regulatory counsel. They also warn that limited time can advantage
well-resourced stakeholders who can mobilize quickly and flood agencies with polished submissions.

Supporters respond that lengthy processes can entrench bad rules and make governance unresponsive, especially when a rule is legally flawed or imposes
costs that exceed benefits. The memo’s theory is that faster repeal of unlawful regulations restores lawful governance and reduces deadweight costs.
The core tension is not new: legitimacy and participation versus speed and executive control.

The Legal and Policy Fault Lines Running Underneath

The “good cause” debate isn’t academicit’s lawsuit fuel

Encouraging direct repeal under “good cause” is one of the memo’s most consequential moves. Courts often scrutinize attempts to skip notice-and-comment.
If agencies use “good cause” broadly, expect litigation. If agencies avoid “good cause” and build fuller records, expect slower action. The memo is
effectively telling agencies: “Pick the right lane, justify it clearly, and be ready to defend it.”

Major questions, statutory meaning, and the “unlawful rule” label

The memo frames unlawful rules as those that conflict with statutory meaning or exceed delegated authority, referencing modern legal doctrines that
emphasize clear statutory authorization for sweeping agency action. It also points to Supreme Court decisions used by agencies to argue that certain
regulations can’t stand under the best interpretation of the statute. Translation: agencies are being encouraged to treat some deregulatory decisions
as legal correctionsnot just policy preferences.

A Practical Playbook for Navigating the New Guidance

For agencies

• Classify the action early: Is the core argument legal (facially unlawful) or factual/policy-based (record-building needed)?
• Engage OIRA early: the memo’s “partner in deregulation” framing rewards pre-submission alignment.
• Build a litigation-ready record: even when moving fast, assume you’ll see a courtroom eventually.
• Consolidate process: avoid duplicative analyses, but document why a streamlined approach is appropriate.

For stakeholders (businesses, NGOs, states, tribes, and everyone else)

• Track the Unified Agenda and agency notices so you’re not surprised by a fast-moving rollback.
• Prepare “rapid response” evidence: short, credible, data-rich submissions beat late, emotional novellas.
• Watch for the “good cause” flag: when agencies skip comment, litigation risk rises and timelines compress.
• Don’t ignore the record: even deregulatory actions need reasoning; gaps can become the center of a challenge.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is OIRA, and why does it matter here?

OIRA is the part of OMB that reviews significant regulatory actions, coordinating interagency feedback and often shaping the final content, timing,
and analytical framing of rules. When OIRA speeds up (or slows down), the entire regulatory pipeline feels it.

Does the memo eliminate notice-and-comment?

No. Many deregulatory actions still require notice-and-comment and robust records. The memo does, however, encourage agencies to consider whether the
APA’s “good cause” exception allows skipping notice-and-comment for repeal of rules viewed as facially unlawfulan approach that is likely to be contested
in courts and debated in public policy.

Is this “fast track” automatic?

Not exactly. The timelines are presumptive, not self-executing. OIRA may extend review for complex or high-impact actions. But presumptions influence
behavior: they change planning assumptions, staffing, and the urgency agencies attach to completing submissions.

Conclusion

OMB’s guidance to streamline deregulatory action review is best understood as a management memo with big policy consequences: shorter OIRA timelines,
a clearer deregulatory playbook, and stronger encouragement to treat some rollbacks as straightforward legal cleanups. Supporters see needed speed and
lawful governance. Critics see reduced public participation and heightened risk of capture or churn.

One thing is certain: if you work in a regulated industry, an advocacy group, or a government affairs shop, the era of “we’ll circle back in 90 days”
may be getting replaced by “we’ll need your comments by Friday.” And honestly? That might be the most bipartisan sentence in Washington: everyone wants
speedright up until the speed is aimed at something they like.

Real-World Experiences Related to Streamlined Deregulatory Review (500+ Words)

Let’s talk about what this kind of memo feels like on the groundbecause the difference between a 90-day rhythm and a 14–28-day rhythm isn’t
just legal theory. It’s calendar trauma.

Experience #1: The agency team that suddenly becomes a startup

Imagine you’re an agency regulatory team with a deregulatory target list, a legal rationale, and a boss who has discovered the phrase “presumptive
maximum” and now says it the way people say “free guacamole.” Under the streamlined approach, your work shifts earlier: you can’t treat OIRA as the
place you go to find out what’s missingyou have to arrive with a nearly complete package. That means the unglamorous stuff becomes mission-critical:
clean citations, a coherent administrative record, a clear explanation of why the rule is unlawful or why the costs exceed benefits, and a plan for
stakeholder input.

The upside is momentum. Teams that have watched rollbacks stall for months get a shot at moving while the policy window is open. The downside is that
every missing exhibit, every ambiguous definition, every unresolved interagency disagreement hurts more because there’s less time to fix it. A 28-day
review clock turns “we should probably clarify that” into “we need to clarify that before lunch.”

Experience #2: The compliance officer with two bindersone for today and one “just in case”

Now picture a compliance lead at a mid-sized manufacturer. You’re not anti-regulation; you’re anti-surprise. The memo’s promise of faster rollbacks can
be welcomemaybe a reporting requirement that never made sense finally gets reconsidered. But speed cuts both ways: the faster a rule can be rescinded,
the faster the compliance landscape can flip again after a court challenge.

So you end up living in two realities. Reality A: “The rollback is final, we can stop doing this.” Reality B: “A judge could pause this next month, so
don’t delete the spreadsheet template, don’t cancel the vendor contract, and please keep the training deck.” The compliance playbook becomes modular:
pause, don’t erase. And that’s not just bureaucracyit’s risk management. When timelines compress, the organization’s ability to adapt becomes a
competitive advantage.

Experience #3: The small business owner who learns what OIRA is by accident

Small businesses usually don’t have “OIRA monitoring” as a line itemunless the owner’s cousin is a lawyer and sends ominous texts like, “Have you seen
the Unified Agenda update?” Under a streamlined deregulatory review regime, the practical experience for smaller players is that the engagement window
can shrink. You might get one chance to explain how a change helpsor hurtsyour operations.

The best real-world adaptation here is collaboration: trade associations, local chambers, and industry coalitions can translate fast-moving federal
actions into concrete implications. In a compressed timeline, the winners aren’t necessarily the biggest playersthey’re the prepared ones. A two-page,
data-backed letter submitted quickly can matter more than a 40-page essay submitted late.

Experience #4: The advocacy group sprinting to keep public participation meaningful

For public interest advocates, faster review can feel like running a marathon at sprint pace. If a rollback proceeds under a “facially unlawful” theory
and uses “good cause” to skip notice-and-comment, the public input pathway narrowsand the fight often shifts to litigation or political oversight.
That’s resource-intensive and tends to favor organizations with legal capacity.

In practice, many groups adapt by building “standing files”: pre-researched issue briefs, impact summaries, and expert networks that can be activated
quickly. The memo’s world rewards readiness. It also raises a broader experience-level question: can the public meaningfully participate when the process
accelerates? Supporters say yesif agencies focus on what matters and avoid redundant steps. Critics say participation becomes symbolic if the clock is too
tight. Either way, the lived experience of streamlined review is clear: fewer idle weeks, more urgent weekends.

Add it all up, and the memo’s impact is less about a single document and more about a cultural shift. Streamlined deregulatory review pushes agencies,
businesses, and the public into a faster-feedback loop. It can produce quicker relief from burdensome rulesbut it can also produce faster churn and more
litigation. The real test will be whether speed and legal durability can coexist, or whether the system simply trades slow frustration for rapid
uncertainty.