Free Minds & Free Markets

A New Bill Would Rein in Executive Overreach and the Administrative State. But Does Congress Really Want That Power?

The REINS Act is back. Again.

|||Endrias Zewde/Dreamstime.comEndrias Zewde/Dreamstime.comThis week saw the reintroduction of the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act. Sponsored by Sens. Rand Paul (R–Ky.), Chuck Grassley (R–Iowa), Joni Ernst (R–Iowa), Todd Young (R–Ind.), and Ted Cruz (R–Tex.), the REINS Act tackles two major libertarian priorities: reducing burdensome regulations and reining in executive power. By passing it, Congress would reassert its role as a check on both runaway presidents and the administrative state.

As a joint statement released by the senators introducing the bill explains, the bill would require "that Congress affirmatively approve every new 'major rule' proposed by the Executive Branch before it can be enforced on the American people, as opposed to the status quo, where regulations ultimately take effect unless Congress specifically disapproves." (A "major rule" is defined as "a regulation that may result in an economic impact of $100 million or greater each year.")

This would be a welcome change. With active affirmation rather than passive consent, there would be much more scrutiny over the rules imposed on Americans and far fewer regulations would pass muster. Grassley is right when he says that "even when well-intended, government regulations are all too often ineffective, counterproductive or even outright harmful." He's also right that "more needs to be done to reclaim the rightful role of Congress as the lawmaking body of government."

But why wasn't this bill passed during the past two years of united Republican government? If we're to take Republican rhetoric at face value, the REINS Act should've sailed through Congress and landed on the president's desk post-haste. But when it was introduced under united Republican government, it went nowhere. That speaks to an enduring, bipartisan problem of reliance on the executive branch.

As Yuval Levin wrote in Commentary last year, "Members of Congress are happy to complain about the other branches, but they are not inclined to use the enormous power at their disposal to restrain those competing institutions and reassert their own." Instead, "Broad delegations of power in statutes have let presidents wield what are properly legislative authorities, and intentionally vague legislation has empowered judges to fill gaps that legislators should never have left open."

The depressing fact is that most members of Congress have become allergic to accountability. Politically, it's far easier for congressional Republicans to point to the deregulation agenda pursued by the Trump administration than to go on the record with votes on specific regulations, many of which would inevitably be controversial.

Essentially, our legislators don't want to legislate because it makes the business of getting reelected more of a burden. The failure to codify the REINS Act is a perfect example of the broader issue.

In this case, that congressional dysfunction led to a missed opportunity for substantive regulatory reform. While it's good that the REINS Act has been reintroduced, a component bill is not likely to pass the House now that it is controlled by the Democrats. To the extent that the Trump administration has rolled back the federal regulatory regime—a success that has been overstated—any progress can easily be erased by a future president.

Until Congress reasserts its constitutionally mandated authority as the foremost federal branch, we aren't likely to see much in the way of sweeping regulatory reform. And reliance on the executive is, unfortunately, a bipartisan scourge.

Photo Credit: Endrias Zewde/

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.


    This is a great inspiring article.I am pretty much pleased with your good work.You put really very helpful information.

  • 0x1000||

    Oh hey, a lady of reason got a new job

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Be assured, the Democrats wont let this pass.

    They still think they will have their person as President someday.

  • a ab abc abcd abcde abcdef ahf||

    Nice way to side-step the stated problem: why did the Republicans block it from passage when they controlled both chambers?

  • BYODB||

    Why are there zero Democrats putting forward such a bill? Note the letter after the name of every sponsor of the bill.

  • BYODB||

    Which is to say that 'Republicans' are literally trying, and this is an example. Note how many Democrats have signed on to assist, even though we have 'literally Hitler' in the White House.

    So, yeah, most Republicans are shitty but not all of them. It appears that there are somehow even fewer good Democrats. We'll see if any sign onto the bill, but I'm not holding my breath.

  • a ab abc abcd abcde abcdef ahf||

    Which is to side-step the question of why said Republican sponsors waited until their sponsorship was meaningless. Why did they not pass this bill when they controlled both chambers?

    It's just virtue signalling.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Your citation fell off, there alphabet troll.

  • a ab abc abcd abcde abcdef ahf||

    Speaking of citations ....

    loveconstitution1789|12.3.18 @ 10:20AM|#

    Do you need me to link the rules of NAFTA and USCMA so you can compare and contrast the "worseness" for us?

    Please enlighten us, O Wise One.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    So no citations for what you were lying about then?

  • Liberty Lover||

    The answer is easy, the Republicans had the power, and all politicians think they will never lose power.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Hihnfaggot, you are not per,otter here. Die.

  • Kevin Smith||

    Why limit the power of the executive when your party controls it?

  • Don't look at me!||

    So perhaps we are learning something.

  • Mithrandir||

    It's good to see this is being driven by congressional Republicans. However, I'm inclined to believe the Democrats will move to change that the next time they have power.

  • a ab abc abcd abcde abcdef ahf||

    Too bad the congressional Republicans waited until they no longer can drive it now that the Democrats have taken over one chamber.

    Pure virtue signalling.

  • Mithrandir||

    It's possible. We'll see if it gets passed or not. I'm hoping there are enough Dems that are wary of executive overreach due to the Trump presidency that they'll vote for it and keep it in place, but I think holding my breath might be a bad idea on that one.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    there would be much more scrutiny over the rules imposed on Americans and far fewer regulations would pass muster

    You're going to need to provide proof that the first part leads to the second part.

  • Longtobefree||

    Or maybe they could pass laws that don't require a massive rule making department?
    How about congress can't pass any laws until all the appropriation bills have been passed.
    Or congress has to repeal two laws for each new law, until the federal code and all regulations together are under 50,000 pages of size twelve font at 8 1/2 by 11?

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    Congress wants no power that requires it to actually do something.

  • Thomas O.||

    So not only do we have a rubber-stamp Congress, but they WANT to be a rubber-stamp Congress.

    They're more concerned about holding on to their seats next election than actually running the country, so they're all "just let the President follow through with the tough decisions (since it's the President we like)".

    I fear the Banana Republic is already upon us. It's Article V time.


Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online