Checks and Balances, August 2025

By

Ballotpedia staff

Highlights from this edition of Checks and Balances include deep dives into Trump’s executive order expanding the role of political appointees in federal grant administration and the release of Ballotpedia’s 2025 administrative state legislative tracker session-end report

In Washington

Trump expands role of political appointees in federal grant administration

What’s the Story?

On Aug. 7, President Donald Trump (R) issued an executive order giving political appointees greater influence over federal grant administration. The “Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking” executive order requires executive agencies to designate a senior political appointee to review and approve discretionary grants the agency administers.

According to the executive order, designated appointees must ensure that grants are “consistent with agency priorities and the national interest” and “where applicable, demonstrably advance the President’s policy priorities.” According to existing regulations, a discretionary grant is one that “in keeping with specific statutory authority… enables the agency to exercise judgment” in awarding it. The executive order also requires discretionary grants to include language making it easier for the agency to terminate them.

The Aug. 7 executive order says this move is necessary “to strengthen oversight and coordination of, and to streamline, agency grantmaking.” Representative Zoe Lofgren (D) said the order would mean “political appointees – who… are unelected bureaucrats – making decisions on what science gets funded.”

Government Executive quotes an anonymous federal employee purportedly working in grant management as saying that the order codifies practices put in place earlier in 2025. In April 2025, the Trump administration withheld grants and other federal funds from several Ivy League universities, with litigation to release them ongoing.

Schedule G

The Aug. 7 order follows a July 17 executive order that created new employee classifications for political appointees called Schedule G. These appointees would join the existing Schedule C, which is used to fill non-career confidential or policy-determining roles. According to a White House fact sheet, Schedule G would provide for “non-career appointments to policy-making or policy-advocating roles.”

As political appointees, Schedule G employees would serve without the legal job protections of career federal employees. The White House said these employees would be “expected to leave when the President who appointed them leaves office.” The Office of Personnel Management released guidelines on July 29 stating that Schedule G employees would receive White House review and approval before being hired.

What’s the background?

Schedule G is the second job classification the second Trump administration has created, after Schedule Policy/Career. This job classification, created in a Jan. 20 executive order, would allow employees to be terminated more easily than career government employees. Career employees working in policy-influencing positions may be reclassified as Schedule Policy/Career under a proposed Office of Personnel Management rule. Schedule Policy/Career is similar to the Schedule F job classification created during the first Trump administration. President Joe Biden (D) revoked Schedule F on Jan. 22, 2021.

Supporters of these new job classifications say making it easier to terminate policy employees will increase accountability and help ensure those employees carry out presidential directives. The White House said Schedule G “will improve operations […] by streamlining appointments for key policy roles,” and that Schedule Policy/Career would “enhance accountability for career federal employees in policy-related roles.” Former Biden administration official Loren DeJonge Schulman said that “this administration is taking a number of steps to politicize what were once known career positions throughout government, and add a level of partisanship to the work that was once seen as a nonpartisan, cross-administration body of work.”

The second Trump administration has issued 191 executive orders as of Aug. 12. Ballotpedia classified 29 of these as directly related to the administrative state, including the executive orders that created Schedule G and the Aug. 7 order on grants.

Want to go deeper?

In the States

Administrative state 2025 legislation: 37 states passed 144 bills and resolutions that decreased agency power

Ballotpedia released its 2025 administrative state legislative tracker session-end report, providing insights, analysis, and takeaways from the 2025 legislative session. You can read the full report here.

As of Aug. 20, most state legislative sessions have adjourned, and all but 30 of the significant administrative state-related bills and resolutions considered this year have either been approved or will likely go no further this year.

Highlights

Ballotpedia tracked 2,038 bills and resolutions in all 50 states related to the administrative state in 2025.

Lawmakers in 42 states adopted or enacted 337 of those bills or resolutions (including 6 through veto overrides).

  • 37 states passed 144 that decreased agency control.
  • 37 states passed 128 that increased agency control.
  • 56 bills and resolutions did not clearly increase or decrease agency control.
  • 9 bills and resolutions increased agency control in some ways and decreased it in others.

Many bills that increase or decrease agency power do so for a specific topic, agency, industry, or program. Others – such as those addressing REINS, judicial deference, rulemaking processes, and oversight – apply to all or most agencies in the state.

Partisan breakdown of new laws decreasing agency control:

  • 19 Republican trifectas passed 92 bills (64%).
  • 10 Democratic trifectas passed 26 bills (18%).
  • 8 divided governments enacted 26 bills (18%).

Partisan breakdown of new laws increasing agency power:

  • 18 Republican trifectas enacted 73 bills (57%).
  • 11 Democratic trifectas enacted 36 bills (28%).
  • 8 divided governments enacted 19 bills (15%).

Ballotpedia analyzes administrative agency actions and the policies governing them according to how agencies interact with the three branches of government, the public, and each other. Ballotpedia calls these the five pillars of the administrative state. Many bills have multiple provisions and are categorized in multiple pillars.

In the legislative control pillar, lawmakers in 23 states passed 47 bills and resolutions addressing legislative review and oversight of agency rulemaking and delegation to agencies.

In the judicial control pillar, lawmakers in nine states passed nine bills.

  • Five states (Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas) passed bills to prohibit or limit judicial deference to agency interpretations. 
  • Other legislation in this pillar concerned expanding possible venues for challenges to agency rulings (Nebraska) and directing the review of federal agency regulations upheld through recently overturned federal Chevron deference standards (Utah).

In the executive control pillar, lawmakers in 14 states approved 22 bills.

  • This pillar included reforms to the process for appointing and removing agency officials and gubernatorial review and oversight requirements for agency regulations. 
  • Bills in Oklahoma and Louisiana required gubernatorial approval for rules, and one in Vermont required gubernatorial approval for immigration agreements.

In the public control pillar, lawmakers in 37 states passed 139 bills, including those related to procedural rights, public commentary and transparency, enforcement, adjudication, and topics such as occupational licensing, permitting, and regulatory initiation.

  • This pillar included regulatory sandboxes, permitting and licensing provisions, and public notice and commentary requirements. Many bills in this pillar are specific to one topic, certain agencies, or particular industries.

In the agency control pillar, 38 states approved 186 bills. 

  • These included the creation of regulatory reduction agencies, the elimination and creation of agencies, restrictions on state agencies, and bills related to federal agency rules and guidance. 
  • This pillar included bills related to government efficiency, including the following reform proposals:
    • Some establish an entity in the executive branch to oversee other agencies.
    • Some require agencies to report hiring practices or employee performance metrics.
    • One was designed to prevent the federal Department of Government Efficiency from accessing personal identifying information.

Ballotpedia also tracked 129 federal bills related to the administrative state in the 119th Congress so far, including legislation related to public disclosure, guidance documents, legislative review of agency actions, and government efficiency initiatives.

Want to go deeper?

Featured Commentary

  • How do commission quorums work? Nicholas R. Bednar of the University of Minnesota and Todd Phillips of Georgia State University write that standards for what constitutes a quorum may vary for different executive agencies.

Want to go deeper?

  • Click here to read the full text of the article.

Regulatory Highlight

  • Congressional Review Act
    • The Congressional Review Act (CRA) allows Congress to repeal rules with joint resolutions of disapproval. The 119th Congress had 60 working legislative days from the 15th day of the session (a window that ended in early May) to introduce resolutions to disapprove regulations the Biden administration issued after Aug. 16, 2024.
      • 95 CRA resolutions have been introduced to repeal regulations, mostly from the Biden administration, but including some issued under the second Trump administration. Twenty resolutions have passed one Congressional chamber, 16 have passed both chambers, and as of Aug. 12, 16 were signed into law.
      • In his two terms, President Donald Trump (R) has signed 32 of the 36 total CRA resolutions ever adopted. President George W. Bush signed one in 2001, and President Joe Biden signed three in 2021.
  • Notable regulation
    • The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) completed its review of the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) proposal creating a process for current or former employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs to appeal the recoupment of awards, bonuses, and relocation expenses they’d received.

Pick of the News

Federal

  • Appeals court upholds Trump’s removal of a Democratic member from Federal Labor Relations Authority: A federal appeals court has upheld President Trump’s dismissal of a Democratic member of an independent agency, the Federal Labor Relations Authority. New York Times
  • Supreme Court lifts temporary injunction, allowing Trump administration to move forward with workforce reductions at federal agencies: The Supreme Court, without ruling on the legality of the proposed workforce reductions, stayed a May 22 preliminary injunction on. New York Times
  • Senate votes 49-46 to confirm Scott Kupor as the head of the Office of Personnel Management: The U.S. Senate confirmed Scott Kupor as head of the Office of Personnel Management in a vote largely along party lines. Government Executive 
  • Trump administration argues it has the authority to dismiss career employees: Trump administration lawyers argued before an administrative judge within the Merit Systems Protection Board that presidential power to fire executive employees, including those protected by the Civil Service Reform Act, is inherent in the US Constitution. Government Executive
  • Appeals court stays restoration of Democrat to Federal Trade Commission: A U.S. district court judge initially ordered the reinstatement of Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, a Democratic Federal Trade Commission commissioner whom President Trump attempted to dismiss earlier this year. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently stayed this ruling. Bloomberg Law
  • Supreme Court grants emergency ruling allowing Trump to remove three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission: The Supreme Court reversed a lower-court injunction and allowed President Trump to remove three members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) who were appointed by President Joe Biden (D). Washington Post
  • EPA rolls back determination that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare: Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin has announced that the agency will revoke its 2009 determination known as the endangerment finding, which serves as the basis of an interpretation of the Clean Air Act authorizing EPA regulation of greenhouse gases. New York Times
  • FCC takes expedited approach to rule deletions: The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has adopted what is known as a Direct Final Rule approach to forgo typical public notice and comment procedures for the repeal of rules it determines are “outdated, obsolete, unlawful, anticompetitive, or otherwise no longer in the public interest.” Pillsbury Insights
  • Trump nominates White House official to fill Federal Reserve vacancy: President Trump has nominated Stephen Miran, currently chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisors, to replace Federal Reserve Governor Adriana Kugler, who announced her resignation Aug. 1. Politico
  • White House reduces DOGE influence at GSA: The White House has detailed nine employees with ties to the first Trump administration to the General Services Administration, in a move seen as reducing the influence of DOGE-aligned GSA employees. Politico
  • The Government Accountability Office ruled that Department of Homeland Security reductions in force (RIFs) are not illegal impoundments: The GAO ruling states that the RIFs did not violate the 1974 Impoundment Control Act. Government Executive
  • Trump dismisses labor statistics head following jobs report showing slowed hiring: President Trump moved to remove Bureau of Labor Statistics Commissioner Erika McEntarfer, citing the downward revision of BLS employment estimates and arguing the findings were “manipulated for political purposes.” NBC News

State

  • Wisconsin Supreme Court strikes down powers of legislative rules review committee: The Wisconsin Supreme Court struck down five statutes that allowed the legislative Joint Committee for the Review of Administrative Rules (JCRAR) to review, object to, and block proposed rules. The Court ruled that the statutes unconstitutionally allow JCRAR to suspend the passage of rules without the involvement of the full legislature. Wisconsin Examiner
  • North Carolina legislature overrides veto to pass REINS-style law, among other bills: The North Carolina Legislature has overridden a gubernatorial veto to enact a number of bills, including HB 402, a REINS-style law that requires legislative approval for proposed rules over a $1 million cost threshold. Carolina Journal
  • California Supreme Court strikes down judicial deference to utilities commission: Ruling unanimously in the case of Center for Biological Diversity, Inc. v. Public Utilities Com., the California Supreme Court has overturned the practice of judicial deference to the California Public Utilities Commission, under which courts would adopt agency interpretations of statute. Gibson Dunn
  • Five states pass bills limiting judicial deference to state agencies in 2025: Five states – Kentucky, Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Missouri — in 2025 have passed bills that prohibit or limit the practice of judicial deference to state agencies, instead requiring state courts to use a de novo review standard. Ballotpedia

Legislative Tracking Update

Since our last newsletter edition, Ballotpedia tracked significant legislative action (enactments, vetoes, and passage through both chambers) in five states on 13 bills related to the administrative state. Five states enacted or adopted 10 bills, including one through a veto override; one state passed one bill in both chambers; and North Carolina Governor Josh Stein (D) vetoed two bills.

Ballotpedia has tracked a total of 2,167 bills related to the administrative state in 2025 as of Aug. 20.