New OMB Memorandum Signals Push To Accelerate Deregulatory Actions — With Implications for Public Participation in Regulatory Processes

Several recent actions taken by the Trump administration under the “deregulatory” banner will abbreviate or potentially eliminate the processes historically available for interested parties to have an effect on federal regulatory actions. These actions are likely to make it more difficult for the public to become aware of and comment on changes to existing regulations, or actions that completely revoke existing requirements that are perceived as unduly restrictive. This Blog reports on such a measure that otherwise might not get noted. Specifically, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) recently issued Memorandum M-25-36, “Streamlining the Review of Deregulatory Actions” (the Memorandum), directing executive agencies to adopt measures that shorten both internal and public review periods for deregulatory rulemakings. When implemented, the measures are likely to substantially reduce opportunities for participation in the regulatory review process, and may disproportionately impact small business, tribal governments, and all businesses that do not have the resources necessary to carefully monitor both OMB’s and the numerous federal agencies’ administrative activities.

Framed as an efficiency initiative, the Memorandum also represents a significant shift in how the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will manage its oversight role, likely limiting public input and narrowing the window for stakeholder engagement in future rulemakings. Moreover, the Memorandum encourages federal agencies to “redouble their efforts” to “quickly withdraw regulations that are facially unlawful” in light of “recent Supreme Court precedent.”

OIRA’s New Timelines and Review Procedures

Federal agencies submit most significant regulatory actions to OIRA for White House and interagency review (and input) by OIRA before the proposed action is published. In accordance with long-established procedures and Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, interested parties may request an E.O. “12866 meeting” with OIRA to provide input during OMB’s review process. In a marked procedural change aimed at enabling faster “deregulatory” rulemaking efforts, the Memorandum replaces the traditional 90-day OIRA review framework for proposed and final federal rulemakings, imposing sharply-reduced presumptive timelines to accelerate deregulatory actions and counteract the general “ossification” of the regulatory process.

OIRA will now presumptively limit its review to 28 days for deregulatory actions supported by a factual record and to only 14 days for revocation or revisions to rules deemed “facially unlawful.” The Memorandum defines facially unlawful rules as those that conflict with clear statutory, constitutional, or administrative requirements. While OIRA retains discretion to extend review for technically complex, high-impact, or litigation-prone rulemakings, the clear expectation is that most deregulatory actions will advance under these significantly compressed timelines. The Memorandum puts significant pressure on OIRA to meet the accelerated deadlines, but it does not create an automatic approval mechanism if those deadlines are not met.

The Memorandum does not define deregulatory actions. It does, however, reference a one-page executive order from the first Trump administration (E.O. 13771) as a source of information on deregulatory actions (which itself does not define the term). The implementing guidance on that E.O. emphasizes that deregulatory actions are those actions that have a “total cost less than zero” and advises that deregulatory actions also can follow informal mechanisms — such as guidance and interpretive documents. The E.O. also says that information collection requests can be “deregulatory actions” if they streamline reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

The Memorandum expresses frustration that federal agencies “do not appear to be fully maximizing their energy in carrying out these directives.” Further, it instructs agencies to reassess their internal coordination and clearance processes to align with these shorter OIRA timelines, creating parallel compression in the overall rulemaking schedule. Collectively, these measures are designed to speed the release and implementation of deregulatory initiatives, but they may also reduce transparency and limit public participation, especially if the agencies themselves truncate their more traditional 60- and even 90-day notice and public comment periods.

The Memorandum calls upon agencies to abide by E.O. 14219 and an April 9, 2025 memorandum that directed federal agencies to review their regulations, identify any unlawful regulatory requirements, and repeal facially unlawful regulations “without notice and comment” under the Administrative Procedure Act “good cause” exception. As we have highlighted elsewhere, the good cause exception applies when notice and comment would be “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.”¹ In such cases, agencies are encouraged to issue interim final or direct final rules, with post-promulgation comment opportunities as appropriate. Traditionally, good cause has been understood as a stringent standard that permits interim or direct final rules only in narrow circumstances, but if the Memorandum’s approach is implemented at agencies, such as U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), where the leadership has a strong deregulatory mission, we should expect they will forgo traditional notice and comment procedures whenever they might find sufficient basis to argue a good cause finding can be made to further expedite their deregulatory agenda. This may also prompt agencies such as EPA to undertake an even broader review of existing regulations, encouraging them to identify and rescind even long-standing rules that could be deemed by their leadership as “facially unlawful.” These sorts of maneuvers could make ensuing regulatory actions more vulnerable in litigation challenging those actions under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Practical Implications for Regulated Entities

Although M-25-36 does not shorten public comment periods or repeal the Administrative Procedure Act, its accelerated review framework effectively reduces the lead time that stakeholders have to anticipate and prepare for proposed deregulatory actions, and in cases of the good cause exemption, may completely remove opportunity for pre-promulgation comment entirely. By moving rules through OIRA and interagency review more quickly, the Memorandum compresses the overall window for meaningful public engagement, even if the formal comment period itself remains unchanged. These shortened timelines for review of deregulatory efforts likely will make it more difficult for entities to track and comment on agency actions.

For example, certain entities may be adversely effected by the Memorandum because it appears to grant federal agencies license to ignore existing requirements imposed by E.O.’s on Federalism (13132), Tribal Consultation (13175), and Takings (12630) which had called on agencies to engage in specific consultations on rules with potential impacts on state and local governments, as well as tribes. As stated in the Memorandum, “Agencies can appropriately presume that deregulatory rulemakings either do not trigger these E.O.s’ analytical responsibilities, or that any such obligations can be handled through the standard review and analysis required by E.O. 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act.” However, in at least one recent EPA rulemaking, which is largely expected to have a deregulatory impact in the “PFAS” space, OIRA unexpectedly completed its review of a proposed EPA action in considerably less than 90 days and, without warning, cancelled a number of previously requested E.O. 12866 meetings before they could occur.

Beyond the adverse impact the accelerated review periods will have on the opportunities for E.O. 12866 meetings, with OIRA operating under abbreviated presumptive deadlines, there will be less time available for interagency discussions among other federal agencies that might have conflicting views on the terms of a deregulatory effort; even further limiting opportunities for substantive engagement during the federal government’s own internal review process.

If implemented broadly, M-25-36 could significantly compress the timeframe in which the general public and interested parties (especially small businesses, the states, and NGOs) have to review and timely respond to proposed rules. Regulated entities should anticipate less lead time to analyze proposals, develop comments, or coordinate responses across trade associations and coalitions. Given this shift, entities should:

• Monitor the Federal Register and OIRA’s website closely for new notices, proposed rules, and pending agency submissions.
• Engage early — ideally during pre-rule or interagency review stages — to ensure that concerns are raised before accelerated timelines take effect.
• Coordinate internally or with counsel to prepare rapid responses to deregulatory proposals with potentially significant operational or compliance consequences.

Arnold & Porter will continue to track OIRA’s implementation of M-25-36 and related developments across federal agencies. We advise clients to stay alert to new rulemaking activity, especially actions classified as deregulatory or burden-reducing, and to prepare to participate as early as possible in the process.

© Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP 2025 All Rights Reserved. This Blog post is intended to be a general summary of the law and does not constitute legal advice. You should consult with counsel to determine applicable legal requirements in a specific fact situation.