Next time, let’s try emergency powers that shrink government

Photo Credit: Getty

As the nation deals with the aftermath of successive natural disasters, the need for a renewed debate on federal emergency powers is increasingly clear. While these powers typically expand government and centralize control, they can also be strategically employed to scale back rules and regulations, providing essential relief and fostering resilience for those most affected-both now and in preparation for future shocks.

In a recentForbes article, I explored the implications of Executive Order 13924 on "Regulatory Relief to Support Economic Recovery," which was issued by Donald Trump in May 2020 during the height of the COVID-19 episode. While questionable expansions of emergency powers and flash policy decisions were rampant at the time, this directive uniquely zeroed in on empowering agencies to ease regulatory burdens employing the same emergency authorities the president himself was using:

"The heads of all agencies are directed to use, to the fullest extent possible and consistent with applicable law, any emergency authorities that I have previously invoked in response to the COVID-19 outbreak or that are otherwise available to them to support the economic response to the COVID-19 outbreak. The heads of all agencies are also encouraged to promote economic recovery through non-regulatory actions."

The order directed agencies to rescind, modify, or waive regulations that could hinder economic recovery, emphasizing that small businesses in particular required clarity and fairness in times of crisis. Joe Biden revoked this Trump policy shortly after taking office, effectively closing the door on sustained regulatory relief that, had it remained intact could have served as a lubricant boosting hurricane recovery efforts.

As my colleague Ryan Young highlighted in his column last week, "#NeverNeeded regulations hindering hurricane recovery," unnecessary federal and state regulations can pose unhelpful hurdles. Outdated and obstructive rules that can act as barriers to private relief efforts include counterproductive regulations against "price gouging" and licensing laws that complicate recovery. These are ripe for removal.

Reinstating a version of E.O. 13924 is not merely about addressing the current crises. It's about establishing a broader policy that prepares for future emergencies-whether natural disasters or economic downturns-without resorting to authoritarian measures. By fostering flexibility and reducing regulatory bottlenecks, we can ensure faster, more effective rebuilding efforts for communities and the nation.

At the same time, any new action must respect legal boundaries and avoid broad expansions of emergency powers. Apart from regulatory relief, we need limits on emergency declarations themselves to contain federal overreach. Too often, emergencies-whether real or exaggerated, such as climate change or housing insecurity-become pretexts for expanding government control.

The unique approach of E.O. 13924, which sought to reverse the usual trend of government expansion during emergencies, remains a relevant but unutilized model for how the nation and localities respond to tomorrow's inevitable challenges.

To read the full article, visit Forbes: "Emergency Powers Can Reduce Rather Than Expand Government."

See also The Case for Letting Crises Go to Waste: How an "Abuse-of-Crisis Prevention Act" Can Help Rein in Runaway Government Growth; and "America Needs an Emergency Declaration to End All Emergency Declarations."