Checks and Balances, February 2025

By

Ballotpedia staff

Highlights from this edition of Checks and Balances include Trump’s first noteworthy executive orders on the administrative state and states modeling the federal Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

In Washington

Bills limiting the administrative state reintroduced in 119th Congress

What’s the story?

Republicans introduced several bills in January and early February that would limit the authority of the administrative state. The following seven bills were all reintroduced after not passing in previous legislative sessions:

  • REINS Act of 2025: This bill would require Congress to approve major federal agency rules and rules with an impact of $100 million or more before they take effect. 
  • Separation of Powers Restoration Act (SOPRA): This bill would require courts to decide challenges against agency actions de novo, without deference to the agency’s interpretation of the authorizing statute. 
  • Sunset Chevron Act: This bill would invalidate executive agency rules previously upheld by Chevron deference unless Congress enacts them into law within a rolling 30-day expiration period.
  • Expediting Reform and Stopping Excess Regulations (ERASER) Act: This bill would require federal agencies to eliminate three regulations for every regulation they create.
  • Midnight Rules Relief Act: This bill would allow Congress to repeal more than one regulation with one joint resolution of disapproval. This includes regulations from the Biden administration that were issued within 60 working legislative days of the previous Congress. It passed the House of Representatives 212-208 on Feb. 12, with one Republican breaking from their party to oppose it and one Democrat breaking from their party to support it.
  • Bureaucratic Limitation and Overreach Control (BLOCK) Act: This bill would lower the existing economic impact analysis requirements agencies must conduct for major rules from $100 million to $50 million per year. Rules exceeding that threshold must gain legislative approval within 15 days of taking effect to stay effective.
  • Federal Freeze Act: This bill would prohibit federal agencies from expanding their workforces or raising employee salaries within a year of the bill’s enactment, with exceptions. It also requires agencies to cut their workforces by 2% within two years and 5% within three years of the bill’s enactment.

What’s the background?

All of the above bills were introduced in previous congressional sessions. Notably, the REINS Act was first introduced in 2009 by Rep. Geoff Davis (R) and has been reintroduced in every session since. It’s passed the House of Representatives four times but has never passed the Senate. 

Similarly, the Midnight Rules Relief Act has been introduced several times since 2012 and passed the House in Dec. 2024, but the Senate did not act on it before the legislative session ended.

The Separation of Powers Restoration Act (SOPRA) passed the House in 2023. 

None of the other bills have passed the House or Senate in previous legislative sessions.

Visit Ballotpedia’s Administrative State Legislation Tracker to view more federal and state legislation impacting the administrative state.

Want to go deeper?

Trump issues executive orders limiting the administrative state

What’s the story?

Ballotpedia has identified seven noteworthy executive orders related to the administrative state issued by President Donald Trump (R) as of Feb. 11. Executive orders are directives the president writes to officials within the executive branch requiring them to change their approach to policy or management.

Here’s the list of noteworthy executive orders related to the administrative state:

  • Restoring Accountability to Policy-Influencing Positions Within the Federal Workforce: This executive order reinstates and amends Executive Order 13957, which created Schedule F (now renamed Schedule Policy/Career). Schedule F reclassified certain federal employees in policy-related positions as at-will employees, making it easier to hire and fire them without standard civil service protections. It also revokes Executive Order 14003 from 2021, reviews policies that may obstruct the new order’s goals, and directs the Office of Personnel Management to revise regulations accordingly.
  • Establishing And Implementing The President’s “Department Of Government Efficiency”: This executive order establishes the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to modernize federal technology and enhance governmental efficiency. It renamed the United States Digital Service (USDS) to the United States DOGE Service and directed agency heads to form DOGE teams and work with USDS to update software, network infrastructure, and IT systems. The order revoked previous executive orders and regulations that conflicted with these initiatives.
  • Reforming The Federal Hiring Process And Restoring Merit To Government Service: This executive order establishes a Federal Hiring Plan to improve recruitment and efficiency in the federal workforce, emphasizing merit-based hiring and the use of modern technology. It directs the Office of Personnel Management to set performance metrics and oversee the implementation of these reforms.
  • Ending Radical And Wasteful Government DEI Programs And Preferencing: This executive order directs agencies to end federal programs and policies from the previous administration related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), including positions, grants, and training programs. It requires agencies to assess the operational and financial effects of these programs, ensure compliance with the new directives, and report progress to the president.
  • Council To Assess The Federal Emergency Management Agency: This executive order establishes the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Review Council to assess FEMA’s response capabilities and effectiveness. The council provides recommendations to improve FEMA’s operations based on historical context, state roles, and the broader public debate on disaster response and federal-state relations.
  • Eliminating the Federal Executive Institute: This executive order eliminates the Federal Executive Institute, a leadership training program for federal employees, and directs the Office of Personnel Management to take necessary steps for its dissolution.
  • Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation: This executive order requires agencies to repeal at least 10 existing regulations for each new regulation proposed. It directs agencies to ensure that the total incremental cost of new rules is “significantly less than zero, as determined by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.”

Want to go deeper?

Lawsuits target DOGE over transparency, data access, and cuts

What’s the story?

Public interest organizations, government unions, and other groups filed lawsuits against the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) immediately after President Donald Trump’s (R) Jan. 20 inauguration. Additional lawsuits challenging specific DOGE and Trump administration actions were filed in the weeks following the department’s creation.

The legal challenges against DOGE and the Trump administration’s cuts to federal agencies include:

  • A Jan. 20 lawsuit led by Public Citizen alleging DOGE violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which requires transparency and balanced representation of perspectives within federal advisory committees. The suit alleges DOGE is subject to the law but lacks balance and transparency in its operations.
  • A Jan. 28 lawsuit by 22 states and Washington, D.C., challenging Trump’s decision to pause federal grants, loans, and other financial assistance programs until the administration reviewed them to determine if they fit the president’s priorities. A federal judge blocked the funding freeze Jan. 31, but litigation is ongoing.
  • A Feb. 3 lawsuit led by the American Federation of Teachers challenging DOGE’s authority to access sensitive government data—including from the Department of Education and the Treasury Department. The suit alleges granting access violated U.S. privacy laws. A federal judge has restricted DOGE’s access pending further litigation.
  • A Feb. 6 lawsuit by the American Foreign Service Association and American Federation of Government Employees challenging the Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle USAID. The suit alleges the move violated the separation of powers since Congress approved the spending. A federal judge temporarily paused the administration’s plans pending further legal proceedings.

Supporters of DOGE argue the department’s role in identifying waste is necessary and legitimate. Martin Gurri argued in a Feb. 11 op-ed, “The mission of DOGE isn’t to obliterate government on behalf of some libertarian utopia. It’s to end corruption where corruption is found, replace incompetence with efficiency, and restore the sense, nearly lost in those decades of drift, that the federal government works for the public rather than the other way around.”

What’s the background?

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is a temporary organization within a federal executive branch agency. The Jan. 25 executive order creating the department tasked DOGE with “implement[ing] the President’s DOGE Agenda, by modernizing Federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity.”

The executive order renamed the existing United States Digital Service to the United States DOGE Service (USDS) and established the agency within the Executive Office of the President. The order also created the U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization within USDS and set the organization to expire on July 4, 2026. This temporary organization aligns with the descriptions of DOGE provided by Trump in November 2024 and by Elon Musk.

Musk, according to a Feb. 17 court filing, is a senior presidential advisor and a special government employee. He is not officially a DOGE employee. The filing said, “Mr. Musk is an employee in the White House Office. He is not an employee of the U.S. DOGE Service or U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization. Mr. Musk is not the U.S. DOGE Service Administrator.”

Want to go deeper?

In the states

Six states introduce REINS-style laws

What’s the story?

At least six states introduced REINS-style bills in the 2025 legislative session so far, which would require the legislature to approve or review proposed agency regulations with certain financial or economic impacts before the regulations become effective. 

Every state except Arizona that introduced REINS-style legislation has a Republican trifecta. Arizona has a divided government.

The following REINS-style bills were introduced in the 2025 legislative session as of Feb. 11:

  • Oklahoma HB2728 would require legislative approval of proposed major rules with estimated implementation and compliance costs of $1 million or more over five years. It also establishes the Legislative Economic Analysis Unit within the Legislative Office of Fiscal Transparency to analyze proposed major rules. 
  • Ohio HB11 would require legislative approval of administrative agency rules with estimated implementation and compliance costs of $100,000 or more annually.  
  • Arizona HB2276, HCR2038, and HB2632 would require proposed rules with estimated implementation and compliance costs of $100,000 or more within five years to be submitted to the Office of Economic Opportunity for review. The bills would require legislative approval for rules with estimated costs of $500,000 or more. AZ HB2632 and HCR2038 also include provisions allowing the legislature to repeal a rule by passing a concurrent resolution. AZ HCR2038 is a legislatively referred ballot measure and would be submitted to voters as a constitutional amendment in the next general election, bypassing the need for a gubernatorial signature. 
  • Missouri SB350 would require legislative approval for administrative rules with an expected expenditure of public funds or reduction of public revenue that exceeds $250,000. 
  • Wyoming SF0127 would require legislative approval for administrative agency rules that could have an annual economic impact of at least $100,000, significant adverse effects on competition or employment, or substantial social and cultural impacts. 
  • Indiana HB1621 and HB1495 would amend the existing Indiana REINS-style state law in the following ways:
    • HB1621 would require the legislature to pass a bill approving rules with compliance or implementation costs of $ 1 million or more over two years before they can take effect. The current law requires rules meeting that threshold to be reviewed by the Legislative Budget Committee.
    • HB1495 would lower the fiscal threshold for legislative review and approval from $1 million to $300,000. The bill would require the legislature to pass a bill to approve the rule before it could take effect. It also establishes a legislative administrative rules review committee to review rules with fiscal impacts on state or local governments of more than $300,000, among other provisions.

What’s the background?

Florida, Wisconsin, Indiana, and Kansas have REINS-style state laws in effect. Indiana and Wisconsin had Republican trifectas when the REINS-style legislation was enacted, while Florida and Kansas had divided governments. Florida and Kansas overrode their governors’ vetoes to enact the REINS-style legislation.

Arizona legislators introduced REINS-style bills in the 2023, 2024, and 2025 legislative sessions. Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs (D) vetoed a REINS-style state law in 2023 and 2024, and voters defeated a REINS-style ballot measure in the 2024 general election.

To view all REINS-style laws at the state and federal level that Ballotpedia tracks, click here.

Want to go deeper?

States model reforms on federal Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)

What’s the story?

At least six states have introduced task forces, legislative committees, or similar groups modeled on the federal Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). 

Ballotpedia tracked two pieces of legislation introduced this year that would create task forces or committees responsible for improving government efficiency. 

  • South Carolina HB3334 would create the South Carolina Government Efficiency Task Force, which would consist of 15 members of the General Assembly and be responsible for developing recommendations for improving government operations once every four years. 
  • Texas HB2106 would create an eight-member advisory committee called the Texas Department of Government Efficiency. The committee would be tasked with studying each state agency and providing them recommendations on how to improve their operational efficiency. 

In four other states, governors have created task forces or committees through executive orders aimed at reducing government waste:

  • Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds (R) signed an executive order on Feb. 10, establishing the Governor’s DOGE task force in Iowa. The task force consists of 15 members and is responsible for assessing how to reduce the cost of government at all levels, finding opportunities to use technology in government, and analyzing how the government can better support the private sector workforce. 
  • Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt (R) signed an executive order on Feb. 3, creating the Oklahoma Division of Government Efficiency (DOGE-OK) with a sunset date of July 4, 2026. DOGE-OK is tasked with identifying and making recommendations for the elimination of what the governor considers wasteful government spending. 
  • New Hampshire Gov. Kelly Ayotte (R) signed an executive order on Jan. 9, establishing the 15-member Commission on Government Efficiency (COGE). The order directs COGE to develop proposals to streamline government, cut unnecessary spending, and better serve the citizens of New Hampshire. 
  • Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry (R) signed an executive order on Dec. 12 that created the Fiscal Responsibility Program to review government expenditures, evaluate state contracts, identify government waste, and more. The program has at least nine members and is headed by a fiscal responsibility czar. 

What’s the background?

Some states such as Montana already have entities that carry out similar tasks to or have similar goals as DOGE. Montana’s Red Tape Relief Advisory Council was created by executive order in January 2021. The stated purpose of the council was to “advise the governor with respect to a plan for a comprehensive review and reform of regulations in every state agency.”

Other states—such as Arizona, North Carolina, and Wisconsin—have created legislative committees to accomplish goals similar to DOGE.

Georgia and Idaho have also introduced legislation requiring agencies to self-report potential waste and inefficiencies in their regulations or the sections of state law they enforce.

Want to go deeper?

Administrative State legislation tracking update: 50 federalism-related bills introduced in 2025 legislative sessions so far

What’s the story?

Ballotpedia’s Administrative State Legislation Tracker recorded 50 bills related to federalism as of Feb. 10 in the 2025 legislative sessions across 23 states and in Congress. These bills reflect ongoing debates about the balance of power between state and federal governments, addressing issues from unfunded mandates to federal regulatory authority.

There are three federalism-related bills in Congress, while the other 47 bills were introduced or carried over in state legislatures: Virginia (6), Utah (4), Minnesota (3), Montana (3), New York (3), Oklahoma (3), Washington (3), Connecticut (2), Florida (2), Hawaii (2), Missouri (2), New Jersey (2), Tennessee (2), Texas (2), Georgia (1), Illinois (1), Kentucky (1), Massachusetts (1), Mississippi (1), North Dakota (1), Oregon (1), and Wyoming (1).

Of the state-level bills, 22 were introduced or carried over in states with Republican trifectas, 15 in states with Democratic trifectas, and 10 in states with divided governments. Twenty-nine bills were introduced by Republican sponsors, 11 by Democratic sponsors, five with bipartisan sponsorship, and two without listed individual sponsors.

Ballotpedia classified 15 federalism bills as increasing agency authority, 21 as decreasing it, and 11 that didn’t clearly increase or decrease agency authority.

Overall, the tracker has covered over 700 bills in 2025 legislative sessions related to other aspects of the administrative state, such as legislative oversight, judicial deference, regulatory reduction, agency authority, and licensing and permitting.

Want to go deeper?

Clyde Crews Jr. argues for additional reforms reducing regulatory dark matter

Clyde Crews Jr., a fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, in a Forbes article, praised President Trump’s (R) executive orders curbing regulatory dark matter—guidance documents, policy statements, and other sub-regulatory mechanisms that implement policies without formal rulemaking. The article argues more changes, including congressional action, stricter oversight of agency guidance, and broader regulatory reduction efforts, are necessary to prevent future administrations from reinstating progressive policies without formal rulemaking.

Want to go deeper?

  • Click here to read the full text of “A Banger Trump Executive Order Abolishing Regulatory Dark Matter” by Clyde Crews Jr.

 

Regulatory tally

  • Congressional Review Act:
    • The Congressional Review Act (CRA) allows Congress to repeal rules with joint resolutions of disapproval. The 119th Congress has 60 working legislative days from the 15th day of the session to disapprove regulations from the Biden administration issued after Aug. 16, 2024.
      • So far in 2025, 43 joint resolutions of disapproval have been introduced, challenging 28 Biden administration regulations under the CRA.
  • Notable regulation: 
  • OIRA concluded its review of a Department of the Interior (Interior) final rule creating a conditional, time-limited opportunity for denied petitioners for federal acknowledgment as a Native American tribe to repetition. The Interior said the rule, effective March 21, 2025, reverses a ban on repetitioning federal acknowledgment after two federal courts ruled in 2015 that their stated reasons for prohibiting repetitions were arbitrary and capricious.
  • The Interior concluded that the rule was significant but not economically significant.