Donald Trump Deregulates Showerheads…Again
From Obama, to Trump, to Biden, to Trump again, the definition of showerhead keeps changing.

On Wednesday evening, President Donald Trump issued an executive order that repeals the Biden administration's December 2021 definition of a showerhead—saying instead that the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of showerhead will do for the purposes of federal regulations.
"I like to take a nice shower to take care of my beautiful hair. I have to stand under the shower for 15 minutes till it gets wet," said Trump in the Oval Office Wednesday before signing the order.
The president's latest order is part of his longrunning pressure campaign against the appliance regulations of the Obama and Biden administrations. But the root of the issue goes back to the presidency of George H. W. Bush.
The 1992 amendments to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) require that showerheads emit a maximum of 2.5 gallons of water per minute.
To route around that limit, some manufacturers created multiheaded shower units. Each showerhead produced no more than 2.5 gallons of water per minute, but added together, they emitted far more water.
The Obama administration ended this regulatory arbitrage by issuing regulations establishing that the entire shower unit had to comply with the 1992 water flow limits.
Trump took a number of swipes at this rule during his 2016 campaign. In the waning days of his first term, he issued a new rule reversing the Obama administration's definition.
In December 2021, the Biden administration reversed course again and reapplied the Obama-era regulations saying that whole shower units, regardless of headcount, had to comply with the 2.5-gallon limit.
Trump has now reverted things back to his 2020 standards.
"Directionally, it's the right thing to do. Unfortunately, there's less to it than meets the eye," says Ben Lieberman, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), which has long been critical of energy efficiency standards for household appliances.
Lieberman notes that no executive regulation can repeal the statutory requirement in the EPCA that showerheads emit just 2.5 gallons of water. Very few Americans have multiheaded showers that Trump has deregulated with his order, he says.
Trump's executive order also declares that his definitional change does not need to go through the standard notice-and-comment period typically required by the Administrative Procedure Act. That could make it more vulnerable to legal challenges.
In order to fully deregulate shower flows, Congress will need to act, says Lieberman.
In his Oval Office remarks, Trump did say he wanted Congress to "memorialize" his order and take on other energy regulations affecting toilets and faucets.
In addition to repealing more rules than the president can unilaterally, congressional deregulation of appliances would likely give manufacturers more confidence to actually invest in superior deregulated products.
The regulatory seesaw between Democratic and Republican administrations leaves companies unsure of whether deregulated, free-flowing shower units they produce one year will be banned again in the next.
Ironically enough, appliance manufacturers were at first critical of the Obama administration showerhead regulations (because they limited the products they could make) and the Trump administration's showerhead deregulations (because it'd require them to invest in creating newly legal products).
That latter industry critique of showerhead deregulation is obviously pure cronyism. Companies didn't want to have to spend money to compete with upstart multiheaded shower unit makers.
Enshrining showerhead deregulation in statute would get industry back on the side of free markets and allow free markets to deliver more choice to consumers.
Rent Free is a weekly newsletter from Christian Britschgi on urbanism and the fight for less regulation, more housing, more property rights, and more freedom in America's cities.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
IF HE GOT CONGRESS TO DO IT, IT WOULD BE PERMANENT!
He didn’t repeal social security so who cares?
In his Oval Office remarks, Trump did say he wanted Congress to "memorialize" his order and take on other energy regulations affecting toilets and faucets.
Name the executive order after someone who died of old age waiting for his showerhead to fully wet his hair.
Or how about The Kramer Act?
If these energy regulations are violated, who is the victim?
Trump does love his golden showers.
Russian prostitutes!!!!
It doesn't help with the 1992 law, but another issue that occurred under the Obama administration, is that previously, showerheads could comply with a rubber reducing washer that could be removably. The new administrative rules declared that it had to be built-in (non-removable).
So, for me, that kinda sucks, because I live at the confluence of the two largest rivers in North America, and water is cheap and abundant. I liked having the ability to alter my shower's flow rate beyond the factory settings. And me saving water on a shower is in no way helping anyone who lives in a water-poor region like Arizona or Southern California. There's no reason to have a nation-wide standard.
But in the absence of repealing the 1992 law, maybe we could at least make it so that individuals have the ability to make their own adjustments.
There's no reason to have a nation-wide standard.
Agreed. But until Wickard is overturned this is what we get.
And me saving water on a shower is in no way helping anyone who lives in a water-poor region like Arizona or Southern California
That's not a very equitable mindset.
On the flip side, perhaps a shower that uses a ton of water would help those people suffering from floods.
That's not a very equitable mindset.
So? Fuck off slaver.
But to atone for previous transgressions against Gaia, we all must suffer.
West Alton?
a water-poor region like Arizona or Southern California
They're not water-poor. They're water-stupid.
I watched this great documentary once, something having to do with the Colorado River Compact when I was researching the subject several years back, and it talked about how Nevada (specifically, Las Vegas) was one of - if not the - world leader in water conservation reclamation. While AZ and CA are out there trying to virtue signal their loyalty to the Cult of Gaia (while taking the EXTREME share of the CRC), Vegas is all "uh, we're a mountain-locked desert that gets virtually no rain" which forced them to bootstrap some real solutions.
It's the age-old progressive hypocrisy. California crows about its dedication to environmentalism while being ludicrously wasteful, and NV just goes out there and DOES it. Without even being particularly boastful about it, since it's a necessity for continued survival.
Sink everything west of the I-5 - in its entirety - into the ocean any day now, please.
Do you know which other dictator liked showers?
Coulda been woise. Congress coulda mandated a flow restriction on bathtub faucets.
King of the Hill had a good episode on government and low flow toilets.
'From Obama, to Trump, to Biden, to Trump again, the definition of showerhead keeps changing.'
Come on, who doesn't like a little shower head?
The last shower head I bought, the plumber called me in to the bathroom to point out the holes in the insert limiting the flow of water. Then he walked out of the bathroom to get something while his drill was by the sink. I examined the drill, and it "slipped" into those holes. Great pleasure in the pressure now,
“Great pleasure in the pressure now,”
Pressure pleasure pleases poon. Nice!
You go, girl!
For years after I bought my home (1973) I kept seeking a good needle-spray shower head. Some that I bought were quite expensive ($20 in the 1970's was a lot of money for a shower head), and every one of them failed, becoming leaky or losing the capacity to deliver the fine spray that I liked, then my problem got solved in an odd way.
Before the turn of the century, the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power shipped to homeowners some low-flow shower heads. Made of heavily-chromed brass, the one I got from them, free, has lasted and lasted, and it still delivers an excellent needle spray. Maybe Niagra still makes them. Not everybody desires to be flooded by an imitation rainfall or a gushing fountain, but it was the California drive to have folks using low-flow shower heads that led to the DWP's giving out really good ones with needle-spray, the way I like it. Stores just didn't have what I desired.
The old saw about an ill wind blowing no good still applies.
If only the Democratic [Na]tional So[zi]alist Empire had never started regulating shower heads UN-Constitutionally in the first place and/or there weren't any Libtarded Supreme Court Justices pretending there wasn't any Supreme Law to the USA follow anyways.
Very few Americans have multiheaded showers that Trump has deregulated with his order, he says.
Why would they? I'm assuming they're much more expensive, and if the whole unit is 2.5gpm, then the system is actually worse at providing water pressure. If this removes that limit as to multi-head showers, then that increases the potential value to manufacturers and consumers.
But hey, fuck free markets if Democrats/green-weenies don't like it, right?