Executive Order 13777: Enforcing the Regulatory Agenda

What the Executive Order Says

Executive Order (EO) 13777 is entitled "Enforcing the Regulatory Agenda".  It was published on February 24th, 2017 and it has 6 section

Section 1

This section states the policy succinctly regarding unnecessary regulatory burdens.

Section 2

In Subsection (a), each agency will name a Regulatory Reform Officer (RRO) who is charged with implementing this EO as well as EO's 13771, 12866 and 13563.  Subsection (b) states the RRO reports to the agency head.

Section 3

This section creates Regulatory Reform Task Forces which are unless designated otherwise, are headed by the RRO.  The Task Force attempts to identify regulations that can be eliminated.  Further, the Task Force shall report within 90 days on the progress towards the stated goals of reducing regulation.

Section 4

This section states that the goals in 3(g) are to be tracked and that these goals are to be included in performance indicators and where possible performance reviews.

Section 5

This section allows for agencies to be granted a waiver from the requirements of this EO based on the fact that they do not issue many regulations.

Section 6

This section includes the necessary legal fine print to ensure the constitutionality of the EO.

My Commentary

So, fundamentally, the question at hand is what is the reason why we have rules?  The argument goes like this: Enforced rules provide for known behavior.  Known behavior provides for certainty.  Certainty provides for planning.  Planning allows for achievement of goals that take a lot of people or a lot of time.  Being able to achieve goals that are bigger than one person allows complex societies to exist since it is impossible for one person to build an electric grid, a road network, a sewage treatment plant or a food distribution system.
Let's ignore for the moment questions around rule breakers.  Creating a rule is done with an intended consequence in mind.  Good faith disagreement with a rule can come in two flavors.  First, there is disagreement with the intended consequence.  In this case, it is a policy debate often motivated by personal or organization goals which may or may not benefit society as a whole or beliefs which may or may not be scientifically provable.  Second, there is agreement with the intended consequence, but disagreement that the rule is the best rule to achieve the intended goal.  For example when someone argues that the rule also had bad unintended consequences.
There can also be bad faith disagreement with the rule.  This can happen when a rule is proposed to close a loophole and those who have taken advantage of it lobby to stop passage of the rule.  Of course the previous statement is fraught with opinion and prejudice.
Complexity adds opportunity for gaming the system.  So from a sense that, if done correctly, regulatory reform (and here, I interpret reform to mean deletion of a bunch of old rules) can be a good thing since it should eliminate ways to game the system.  However, there is an expectation that this EO and the regulatory reform it is promoting is disguising a project to remove rules that prevent corporations and wealthy individuals from doing things that result in a private benefit and simultaneously a public cost.  The classic example is dumping waste into a river rather than paying for proper disposal.
In the recent news have been stories of large swaths of rules in the Department of Education being revoked.  These rules deal with the requirements for handling disabled students and also regarding how to deal with accusations of sexual discrimination and harassment.