Executive Order 13829: US Postal System

What the Executive Order says

Executive Order (EO) 13829 is entitled "Taskforce on the United States Postal system" and has 7 sections.  It was issued in April 2018.

Section 1

This section sketches out that the US Postal System (USPS) is currently operating under a financing model that is structurally unsustainable and cites certain facts in support of that position.

Section 2

This section defines who will be on the Task Force and that it will be led by the Secretary of the Treasury.

Section 3

This section directs the Task Force to seriously reconsider the traditionally understood mandate of the USPS and how present trends extrapolate into the future such as additional package volume due to e-commerce and similarly, the reduced letter volume due to electronic communications technologies.

Section 4

This section discusses what is to be considered when the Task Force comes up with recommendations.  The recommendations should not increase taxes and needs to consider EO 13781 (which I discuss here) as well as the views of the USPS workforce and customers.

Section 5

This section mandates that a report be generated within 120 days to summarize the findings and recommendations of the Task Force.

Section 6

This section indicates from where the funds to run the task for will come, which is the Federal Financing Bank.

Section 7

This section, labeled "general provisions" includes specific text to ensure that the EO does not exceed the constitutional limits on executive power.

My commentary

So the lapse of time actually very much worked in the favor of being able to capture a more comprehensive consideration of what is going on with this EO.  And there are considerable tides pushing this issue around.  First is that everyone agrees that USPS needs to exist and it needs to provide mail services to everyone.  However, in providing that service, many argue exactly who should be footing the bill or why a post office should exist in every hamlet with a 1,000 people who live thereabouts.  In that respect, this EO certainly is continuing that argument, especially when it asks that "universal service" needs to be redefined.
Second, I do think that it is fair to re-consider the mission of USPS because of the large scale technological changes that have happened over the past 20 years.  But to draw the conclusion that because of these changes, USPS is a relic that is long past its expiration date is wrong.  There is a role to play and USPS could enhance the services that it provides to mail customers through technology and there needs to be an incubator so that new services could be developed.  These services may well compete in the market against services being provided by publicly traded or privately held for-profit corporations.  For some this should not be allowed by their fundamental philosophy.  But my opinion is that if you are wanting to not fund the USPS through tax based subsidies to be able to succeed in the mission to provide universal service, then you have to let it compete in the market.
Given the predispositions of the current administration, it is entirely probable that the report will favor eliminating as much of USPS as possible.  The final report, issued in December 2018 is here.  It is 74 pages long.  There was also an interim report in August of 2018.
The recommendations in the report notably include a lot "keep things the same, but make money instead of losing it".  It is not a great report, but on the other hand, it doesn't significantly push for privatization either.

Executive Order 13828: Reducing Poverty

What the Executive Order says

Executive Order (EO) 13828 is entitled "Reducing Poverty in America by Promoting Opportunity and Economic Mobility" and has 5 sections.  It was issued in April of 2018.

Section 1

This section proposes the argument that many who are on public or government assistance of various kinds have been trapped there and are suffering because the government is giving them assistance to meet basic needs.

Section 2

This section starts by saying that the measure of success of assistance programs is to see how many people are able to find work such that they no longer need or qualify for the aid given by the program.  Fundamentally, the text presupposes and indirectly references that there are some large number of "free riders" that are taking advantage of the government aid who, as a result, are not working because the income/benefits received allow them to have a luxurious and idle life.  Also, "government waste" is also referenced.

Section 3

This section mandates that certain agencies make a review of federal laws and regulations to determine first if additional work requirements can be applied regarding the benefits being provided.  Second, to ensure that programs are not, as much as possible, providing benefits or assistance to illegal aliens.  And there are reports that have to be written and provided to the Director of the OMB.  Note that the President doesn't seem to want to get the reports himself any more.

Section 4

This Section includes definitions for the terms "individuals", "families", "persons", "work", "workforce", "welfare", and "public assistance".

Section 5

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

My Commentary

So it has been said many times that the Red rural counties, which are often the poorest parts of the US, is where the current President got a large part of the vote necessary to win the presidency.  So many liberal pundits have seized on the fact that so many executive branch policies and initiatives, not to mention legislation passed by the Republican controlled Congress have usually had depressive effects on the Red rural counties.  Here it seems that the President is finally trying to help the people who elected him by finally getting them off of government assistance so that only those that are worthy will survive by being able to find a way to earn money and those that are not will die of starvation or disease homeless in the streets.
I do agree that there is a need to measure outcomes of programs.  But in doing so, we also have to keep in mind that externalities such as the state of the economy, the prevailing wages and local cost of living do have a significant impact on whether people are able to rise back up so that they no longer need or qualify for the assistance program.  This is especially true of "re-training" programs.

Executive Order 13827: Venezuela

What the Executive Order says

Executive Order (EO) 13827 is entitled "Taking Additional Steps to address the Situation in Venezuela" and it has 7 sections.  It was issued in March 2018.

Section 1

This section prohibits US persons from being involved in transactions or funding of digital currencies by, for or on behalf of the Government of Venezuela.

Section 2

This section prohibits transactions that are structured to try and avoid or circumscribe the rule in section 1.

Section 3

This section provides definitions for the terms "person", "entity", "United States person", and "Government of Venezuela".

Section 4

This section instructs the Secretary of the Treasury to take necessary actions to implement this EO.

Section 5

This section describes the justification why no advance notice on the prohibition is warranted and references EO 13692 which called for blocking the property of certain individuals in Venezuela and was issued under the previous administration in March of 2015.

Section 6

This section is a standard clause to ensure the constitutionality of the EO.

Section 7

This section defines when the EO becomes effective.

My Commentary

The sanctions herein are not really significant by themselves.  But I believe that it was an additional necessary step and a sign of technological change in the world's financial structures.  As time has passed, we have seen that the situation in Venezuela has worsen nearly every single week and that the average Venezuelan is suffering from fighting for power that is going on.

Executive Order 13826: Crime Prevention

What the Executive Order Says

Executive Order (EO) 13826 is entitled "Federal Interagency Council on Crime Prevention and Improving Reentry" and has 7 sections.  It was published in March 2018.

Section 1

This section states that the aim of the policy is to reduce crime and also re-integrate rehabilitated convicts into the community as productive citizens.

Section 2

This section states that the policy is to prevent people from becoming criminals and to lower recidivism rates.  Then it vaguely says that the Federal government has a role to play and that agencies need to coordinate activities to enhance efficiency.

Section 3

This section defines the members of the Federal Interagency Council on Crime Prevention and Improving Reentry.  It tasks the Council with specific actions such as meeting once per quarter.

Section 4

This section mandates that an initial report as well as a final report and status updates on implementation of the accepted recommendations all are written.  There are a number of factors that are to be considered.

Section 5

This section revokes a Presidential Memo dated April 29, 2016.

Section 6

This section states that the Council will be terminated 3 years from the date of the EO.

Section 7

This section includes general provisions which limit the interpretation of the EO to ensure its constitutionality.

My Commentary

So this task force replaces one that the previous administration had set up in April of 2016.  Here is some information regarding that.  There are a few announcements, such as the appointment of the Executive Director, but I cannot find anywhere that a report was issued nor even a website, although it is not clear if the predecessor organization (FIRC) that was the subject of the April, 2016 memo, website was taken over by the organization mentioned in this EO.  It doesn't appear to be.  So overall, it appears that nothing has happened here.

Executive Order 13825: Manual for Courts-Martial

What the Executive Order says

Executive Order (EO) 13825 is entitled "2018 Amendments to the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States" and has 12sections.  It was originally issued in March 2018.

Section 1

This section indicates that the changed versions of Parts II, III and IV of the Manual for Courts-Martial are included as Annex 1 to the EO.

Section 2

This section indicates that for when the change was effective, that you can't be charged with a crime nor have the charges dropped due to a change regarding the deed in the changes made today.

Section 3

This section discusses the Military Justice Act of 2016, which is PL 114-328.  Section 5542 directs the President to prescribe implementing regulations for all of the changes listed in Division E of the Law.

Section 4

So while Annex 1 shows a bunch of changes made, there are further changes in Annex 2.

Section 5

This section indicates that the changes in Annex 2, unlike the changes in Annex 1, take effect in the future.  The language here again indicates that people can't be made guilty or innocent for deeds committed on the opposite side of the effective date.

Sections 6 through 12

These sections makes further clarifications regarding the applicability and interpretation of certain sections of PL 114-328.  It is not clear to me why they had put things into different sections of the EO, especially since the date of effect is January 1, 2019 for almost all of the items listed in these sections.

My Commentary

The preamble, which sets out the authorities on which this EO is issued, indicates that by 10 USC 801, Congress has deemed that the President has the authority to direct and define the justice processes and military law applicable within the military.  Insofar as adjudication of incidents involving both military and civilian participants, it is not clear whether military or civilian law has precedence.  So prior to this, I had been under the false belief that Congress also defines military law, but apparently it does not.  A scan of new articles on the topic, especially since a lot of the changes are going into effect this past month, leaves me with the impression that it is regarding crimes of a sexual nature that are affected the greatest.

Executive Order 13824: Sports, Fitness, and Nutrition

What the Executive Order Says

Executive Order (EO) 13824 is entitled "President's Council on Sports, Fitness, and Nutrition" (note the Oxford comma) and has 2 sections.  It was issued in February of 2018.

Section 1

This section revokes EO 13545 which the previous President used to establish his "President's Council on Sports, Fitness, and Nutrition."

Section 2

With EO 13545 having been revoked, EO 13265 comes back into force, but this section makes a number of changes to the text of it.  However, technically, the changes listed interfere with each other.  Section 5 is changed by (c), then renumbered by (d) and then further changed by (a) (b) (c) which are under (d).

My commentary

So I characterized this as word soup.  It is so hard to read documents that are created this way.  You have to be able to access the original plus the list of changes and then work through the integration of the changes into the original.  Having pieced together what the final version is, it creates a council and, depending on whether the administration and the council take the charge seriously, it could do some good things or not.
One point made in the purpose section is that team sports participation by children has declined.  I have to ask what is so special about team sports.  I have found these kinds of organized leagues and teams to be expensive and a proportion of the people involved petty and vindictive.  There is the cliché of the one kid who is on the team but never gets to play.  It's a cliché because it does happen even though it really should not.  Physical exercise need not be an organized sport, whether team or individual.  The real justification here should have been statistics about children's and young adult's health.  But talking about that would get into the third rail of "HealthCare" and Republicans simply do not have a defendable alternative to the current system to offer.  But the statistics show there is room for improvement.
Further, this is one of the things that it seems that Presidents use to play one-upmanship games with.  We've seen a couple of these kinds of EO's issued in our review.  Here, EO 13824 revokes EO 13545 which itself largely modified EO 13265 which itself revokes EO 12345.  The President's council can be reviewed here.

Executive Order 13823: Terrorists

What the Executive Order says

Executive Order (EO) 13823 is entitled "Protecting America Through Lawful Detention of Terrorists." and has 4 sections.  It was issued in January 2018.

Section 1

This section starts awkwardly citing "long-standing law of war principles" which I guess is trying to reference the Geneva Convention. This section is subtitled "Findings" and tries to present a justification as to why the US can detain persons considered enemies of the US at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Station.

Section 2

This section revokes Section 3 of EO 13492.  That EO and that specific section called for the closure of the detention facilities at Guantanamo by January of 2010.  Clearly, that never happened.  Section 2(c) allows for transport of additional detainees to Guantanamo.  Section 2(d) has several layers of irony in asking for a report from the intelligence agency to recommend policies on prisoners of war and the use of the Guantanamo Bay Detention facility.  First, because the EO's seem to always look for a report to be written, second because there are news stories and books published detailing how the current President does not listen to the Intelligence Services anyway.  The last subsection references EO 13567 from March of 2011.  That EO set up a review process for period reviews of detainee files to expedite a final disposition so that detainees could be all removed from Guantanamo.  Subsection 2(e) of EO 13823 stipulates that any new detainees would be subject to the same periodic reviews.

Section 3

This section adds some language that restricts the applicability to those persons captured during an armed conflict, and in the case they are American citizens, that this does not deprive the detainees of their rights as citizens.

Section 4

This section includes language to limit the applicability such that is does not conflict with applicable laws or create any legal liabilities against the US Government.

My commentary

The most significant item in this EO is 2(a) wherein section 3 of EO 13492 is revoked.  That section had mandated that the authorities work to remove all the prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base and close the detention facility.  As such, the detention facility is to be used in an ongoing fashion to detain existing and new detainees as necessary.  The EO is fairly symbolic as it stakes out the administrations attitude towards prisoners of war and other individuals considered "enemies of the US" (except, of course, journalists).
The funny thing about life to me is that when you go looking for something, more often than not, you seem to find it.  Thus the way to find good things in life is to go looking for those good things.  If the US spends a lot of resources looking for enemies, she shall certainly find them.  And here is the stark contrast between the erstwhile and present administrations: one looked for friends, the other for enemies.  Hence the 180 degree shift in policy from emptying the detention facility at Guantanamo to using it for more found enemies.

Executive Order 13822:Supporting Veterans

What the Executive Order Says

Executive Order (EO) 13822 is entitled "Supporting our veterans during their transition from uniformed service to civilian life" and it has 3 sections.  This EO was issued in January 2018.

Section 1

This section defines the policy which is that veterans need better access to mental healthcare services including suicide prevention resources.

Section 2

This section has 3 subsections.  (a) directs the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Secretary of Homeland security to do something.  Doesn't really say what they should do.  (b) mandates that the group mentioned need to submit within 60 days a Joint Action Plan.  (c) mandates that a follow-up report on the progress of implementation of the Joint Action Plan be issued within 180 days.

Section 3

This section includes general provisions that limit the authority of the EO to ensure that it does not overstep legislative and constitutional limits.

My Commentary

I have looked on the internet for the Joint Action Plan and follow-up report since due to the age of this EO, it clearly should be available.  On the Veterans Affairs website, I found this updated action plan.  This plan defines 16 actions to be implemented that will support the reduction in suicides and mental health incidents for veterans.  I found this status update report dated July 9, 2018 although it is watermarked "DRAFT".  I would like to think that this had made a difference in at least some veteran's lives.  But it is not clear that there has been much success and since there does not seem to be any mandated report to follow up the implementations (while most of the 16 actions were "On track", none were expected to be completed until mid-2019), we may never know.

Executive Order 13821: Rural Broadband Internet

What the Executive Order Says

Executive Order (EO) 13821 is entitled "Streamlining and Expediting Requests to Locate Broadband Facilities in Rural America".  It has 4 sections and was originally issued in January of 2018.

Section 1

This section defines the policy.  It first states that internet access is rural areas is a problem that can be an obstruction to growth, development, and jobs.  The actions being taken are indicated as aiming for regulatory reform and reduction.  The last paragraph indicates that continued implementation of section 6409 of PL 112-96 shall be pursued.

Section 2

This section has 5 different subsections.  The Administrator of General Services is directed to make a review of the common form application and based on the review, due in July of 2018, make changes to the form.  (c) directs various bureaucrats to review and approve requests to mount antennas on Federal Property. (d) and (e) mandate that quarterly reporting is generated on the application process.

Section 3

This section includes definitions for the terms "Federal property managing agencies" and "Federal real property".

Section 4

This section contains general provisions that limit the authority of the Executive Order so as not to appear to override existing laws or create any liabilities for the US Federal Government.

My commentary

So overall, this policy amplifies a policy that was created by a previous congress and simply creates some reporting requirements around it.  Now the GSA has to report the number of applications that were received to mount microwave band antennas on the roofs of federal buildings.  I have not been able to find these reports anywhere.  How exactly this helps get broadband to everyday rural citizens is a bit mysterious to me.  I don't think this EO was terribly effective to change anything.
There are some political ironies in the issue of this EO.  First, the current administration is highlighting and endorsing a policy that was created under the previous administration.  The current administration has been strongly pushing for elimination and relaxation of regulations and why this seems only to be a step sideways instead of in the direction of elimination is unclear to me.
I can see that cell towers and similar communications array facilities are subject to the NIMBY effect where everyone wants these to be built, but just not on, beside or near their particular home or business.  The 112th congress seemed to have it right in mandating that it be allowed to have such communication arrays put on federal land when necessary due to local resistance to siting.  One of the sub-texts here is that siting requests that are being held up on environmental impact or other such concerns are the culprit.  Of course there is only a limited amount of space on federal land and the federal government needs to hold some in reserve for future internal needs.  As such, I suspect that the agencies where there have been proposals have jealously guarded the capacity.
In terms of implementation, I have found little to support that any real action happened after the issue of the EO.  However, this FCC report seems to echo a number of the concerns listed in the EO about the slowness of the process for siting approvals.  This topic has been discussed often and for quite some time.  One opinion piece that I found attributed the slowness of rural broadband expansion to the FCC dragging their feet on any number of regulatory or permitting issues.  This EO was just preceded by a memo to the Secretary of the Interior.  I think that the issue and vacuous nature of the memo and EO point to policy arguments within the administration.  Expanding broadband internet may not be appealing to the free market (well, really it is an oligopoly) and I feel that some government intervention in the market is warranted.

Executive Order 13820: Termination of Election Integrity Commission

What the Executive Order says

Executive Order (EO) 13820 is entitled "Termination of Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity" and has 2 sections.  It was originally issued in January of 2018.

Section 1

This section revokes EO 13799 from May of 2017.

Section 2

This section includes the standard fine print asserting the constitutionality of the EO.

My Commentary

Well, after a lot of controversy, the commission on Election Integrity, which was intended to try and prove that 3 -5 million fraudulent votes had been cast in favor of the Democratic nominee such that the President had won the popular vote, was shut down.
With respect to the politics of the situation, it was really quite a serious embarrassment for the Republican party, but it was necessary since the commission had been repudiated and it had become clear that it was established on a lie.  See my commentary here.

Executive Order 13819: Adjustment of Certain Rates of Pay

What the Executive Order Says

Executive Order (EO) 13819 is entitled "Adjustment of Certain Rates of Pay" and has 8 sections.  This EO defines the rates of pay for political appointees.  This is an annual item.

Section 1

This section references schedules 1, 2, and 3 as the rates of pay for General, foreign service and regarding the Veterans Health Administration and the Department of Veterans affairs.

Section 2

This section references schedule 4 for the rates of pay for Senior Executives.

Section 3

This section references schedules 5, 6 and 7 for the rates of pay for the Executive, the Vice President and Congress, and for justices and judges.

Section 4

This section references schedule 8 for uniformed service pay rates.

Section 5

This section references schedule 9 for locality based comparability payments.  The requirements of publishing notice regarding locality based comparability payments was done in this OMB notice in March, 2018.

Section 6

This section references schedule 10 for the rates of pay for administrative law judges.

Section 7

This section defines when the rates of pay come into force which is either Jan 1, 2018 or the first day of the first applicable pay period after Jan 1, 2018.

Section 8

This section indicates that Executive Order 13756 was superseded by this EO.

Schedules

There are 10 schedules attached to the Executive order

My Commentary

This Executive Order is part of the normal running of the government.  Each year the pay rates are set as required.  This EO was superseded in December 2018 as the rates were again changed.

Executive Order 13818: Sanctions against persons

What The Executive Order Says

Executive Order (EO) 13818 is entitled "Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption" and was issued December 20th, 2017 and it was continued a year later in December 2018.  It has 13 sections, a preamble and an annex.  The annex lists 13 specific persons to whom the sanctions listed in the EO apply.  The preamble declares a national emergency due to the threat imposed by human rights abuses and corruption around the world that threaten the national security, foreign policy and economy of the US.

Section 1

This section decrees that a freeze be implemented on the financial assets of persons named in the Annex.  Also anyone in the US who conducts business with the names persons will end up with their assets frozen.  Despite the freeze, there may be exemptions due to statutes and regulations and current contracts can be fulfilled.

Section 2

This section suspends the ability of the names persons to enter into the United States, whether for immigration or non-immigration purposes.  Then it refers to an old Proclamation (no. 8693) as to how to apply the rules.  In review, it is noted that use of that Proclamation seems formulaic or else it is really well written.

Section 3

This Section prohibits donations in lieu of commercial transactions.

Section 4

This section expands on the prohibitions in section 1.  These specific items are intended to emphasize that doing business with the named persons is illegal.

Section 5

This section prohibits transactions or conspired transactions which would circumvent the prohibitions defined in this EO.

Section 6

This section defines the terms "person", "entity" and "United States person"

Section 7

This section provides justification for not including a notice period.

Section 8

This section delegates to the Secretary of the Treasury to take whatever steps are allowed by the Statute and are necessary to implement the Executive Order.  The Secretary can then request other federal agencies to take actions to implement the Executive Order.

Section 9

This section delegates to the Secretary of State the necessary authority to carry out the actions specified in section 2 of this EO.

Section 10

This section delegates the authority to end the blocking of property to the Secretary of the Treasury.

Section 11

This section delegates the submittal of reports required by 50 USC 1641(c) and 50 USC 1703(c) to the Secretary of the Treasury.

Section 12

This section defines the date and time at which the Executive Order comes into force.

Section 13

This section includes the legal fine print necessary to ensure compliance with the constitutional limits on the executive branch.

Annex

In the Annex are listed 13 persons from all over the world.

My commentary

I honestly cannot remember what, if any, international events might have lead up to the issue of the particular Executive Order.  It is of the type wherein the forces of normalcy had snuck in and wrested a victory from the jaws of chaos that have normally consumed the administration.  However, I really have some angst with the fact that human rights abuses and corruption in general are being used as a justification to invoke a national emergency.  It would make more sense if there was a particular instance that needed to be made an example of.  The pre-amble is weak in the justifications provided.  That's not to say I disagree with taking action against the people listed in the Annex.  There was something political in framing it through a) scare tactics and b) through a Presidential Executive Order rather than simply pursuing justice through the Justice Department and Intelligence agency black ops.
The text itself should have been almost boilerplate, if you run a search on Proclamation 8693, you can see that this kind of thing has been issued on a regular, maybe infrequent, but certainly regular basis and yet Section 4 of the EO looks like it was jammed in there at the last minute before signing.

Types of Presidential Documents

The Types of Presidential Documents

In the US Constitution, Article II is about the Executive Branch and specifically about the President.
In the Federal Register, in the advanced search function, there are 6 different kinds of Presidential Documents.



What needs to be published in the Federal Register is covered under 44 USC 1505 and for any Presidential Document that has general applicability and legal effect, these have to be published unless they are withheld for national security reasons.  Additionally, in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), title 3 is the President.
Here is graph of the recent presidents and what kinds of documents they have issued.  I have taken a straight-line projection for the current President for 8 years (2 terms) for the purposes of comparison with the other presidents because they all had 2 terms.

Determinations

These documents are essentially records of decisions.  I have reviewed all of the Presidential Determinations under the current president here.

Executive Orders

These are general type documents, this blog has reviewed all of the Executive Orders that have been signed by the current President.  There is a collection under title 3 of the CFR of all of the Executive Orders since they effectively carry the weight of law.

Memoranda

These are memoranda which include a notice to issue them in the Federal Register.  In some cases, these memoranda document delegations of authority allowed by law but in order to be effective, they have to be announced.

Notices

As required by some laws, the President must provide a notice for something or other and that these notices must be issued in the Federal Register.

Proclamations

The title suggests that these are ceremonial and often they are.  But these are equivalent to Executive Orders and my intention is to cover some of the more consequential ones in this blog.

Presidential Orders

These appear to be rarely used and it is not at all clear how these would be different from Executive Orders.  In fact, Clinton never issued one in the Federal Register, Bush, Jr. issued 3, Obama issued 5 and Trump has issued 2:

• Presidential Order of May 23, 2017 regarding Sequestration regarding section 251A of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act (2 USC 901a)
• Presidential Order of September 13, 2017 regarding Lattice Semiconductor.  This Presidential Order prohibits a planned purchase of Lattice Semiconductor by China Venture Capital Fund.

Additional requirements for transparency

1 CFR 10 is entitled "Presidential Papers" and this regulation requires that quite a bit of presidential activity has to be issued on a daily basis.  This includes
(a) The text of the publication consists of oral statements by the President or of writing subscribed by the President, and selected from transcripts or text issued by the Office of the White House Press Secretary, including—
(1) Communications to Congress;
(2) Public addresses and remarks;
(3) News conferences and interviews;
(4) Public messages and letters;
(5) Statements released on miscellaneous subjects; and
(6) Formal executive documents promulgated in accordance with law.
(b) In addition, each publication includes selections, either in full text or ancillary form, from the following groups of documents, when issued by the Press Office.
(1) Announcements of Presidential appointments and nominations;
(2) White House statements and announcements on miscellaneous subjects;
(3) Statements by the Press Secretary or Deputy Press Secretary;
(4) Statements and news conferences by senior administration officials; and
(5) Fact sheets.
Further, 1 CFR 19 has some fascinating requirements for Executive Orders and Proclamations.  These need to be provided in paper form to the agency that actually issues documents in the Federal Register.  Here, someone should have reason to request a revision to rulemaking to allow for an all electronic process.

Executive Order 13765:Prelude to ACA repeal

What the Executive Order Says

Executive Order (EO) 13765 is entitled "Minimizing the Economic Burden of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Pending Repeal" and was issued on January 20th, 2017.  This was the first EO signed by the current administration and it has 6 sections.

Section 1

This section defines the policy and frames the repeal of Obamacare as being motivated by individual freedom and States rights issues.

Section 2

This section directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) and other agency heads to exercise all and any discretion defined in the PPACA so as to "waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation" of the PPACA.

Section 3

This section directs  the Secretary of HHS and other agency heads to exercise all and any discretion available to them in the PPACA to push decisions on implementation to the States.

Section 4

This section directs the Secretary of HHS and others to take actions, if possible to allow interstate commerce in the Health Care Insurance market.

Section 5

This section indicates that the usual rules for rulemaking apply.

Section 6

This section includes the usual legal fine print to assure the constitutionality of the EO.

My Commentary

It was to be expected that the administration would make repealing Obamacare a priority.  It was not expected that 11 months into the administration, we still have Obamacare in place and that there is discussion and debate amongst Republicans whether to include repeal of the individual mandate in the tax reform bill.
I think that there is a bit of a contradiction between sections 3 and 4.  If one considers that the efficiency and stability of insurance plans gets better as the pool of participants in the plan grows, then in reality, the larger the pool, the better it is for not only the participants, but also for health care providers.  To get bigger pools, then one really needs to consider groups on a national level.  However, as was discussed during some of the debates, each state is different and ultimately is their own unique marketplace and the health insurers would probably need to customize a plan for each state to take into consideration any State laws and regulations.  So these two priorities conflict.  If the States stipulate what they feel are the priorities of their citizens with respect to healthcare (exercising States' rights) then it largely makes interstate commerce impossible.
In thinking about the healthcare issue, recognizing that the whole country is not going to suddenly wake up one day and say "We should just adopt the Canadian system", one rule that might shift the thinking on how health insurance works and should work is what I would call the Healthcare neutrality rule.  Similar to Net Neutrality, it shouldn't matter if you are in or out of network, coverage, co-pays, etc. should be exactly the same.  This will give consumers more choices and defining which doctors can be used has always been a rallying cry against government run health care.  It would strongly promote transparency in pricing as well.

Executive Order 13766: Expediting Environmental Reviews

What this Executive Order says

This Executive Order (EO), No. 13766, is entitled "Expediting Environmental Reviews and Approvals for High Priority Infrastructure Projects" and was issued January 24th, 2017.  It has 4 sections.

Section 1

This section describes the purpose of this EO, in that there are delays to projects due to agency processes and procedures, one of the prime culprits that has been complained about is the EPA.

Section 2

This section indicates that at the request of State Governor, or the head of an executive agency or at their own initiative, the Chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality gets to decide what projects are considered "high priority".

Section 3

This section explains who is responsible for keeping review deadlines and who is responsible for following up on these deadlines.

Section 4

This section has the usual legal fine print required to ensure the constitutionality of the EO.

My Commentary

So, someone on some TV program (I think) once had provided a rationale that predictability from the environmental review process would be a good thing and that in business, there are sometimes doubts as to whether or not to make an investment because it cannot be predicted whether (or when) something will get approval to start construction.  We do need industry and I think it is reasonable that for any government service there is predictability of outcomes.  The fear in looking at this EO is that there will be pressure to perform less rigorous or complete of a review in order to meet an arbitrary deadline.
The goals stated in this EO were furthered with more detailed procedural prescriptions in EO 13807 which was issued on August 15th, 2017.

Executive Order 13768: Public Safety

What the Executive Order Says

Executive Order (EO) 13768 is entitled "Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States" and was issued on January 25th, 2017.  It has 18 sections.

Section 1

This section defines the purpose of the legislation as directing Federal agencies to focus on removal of illegal aliens from the US and hints at reasons why this would be a good policy and some of the foreseen benefits to US citizens, e.g., they would be safer.

Section 2

This section repeats section 1, but more succinctly.

Section 3

This section references the reader to section 1101 of title 8, USC for definitions.

Section 4

This section directs federal agencies to use any legal provisions granted in the laws to remove aliens or expedite the removal process.

Section 5

This section is included to confuse the reader.  This purportedly gives a list of priorities in terms of determining which illegal aliens should be focused on for deportation.  However, (c) states "have committed acts that constitute a chargeable criminal offense."  Well, being an illegal alien constitutes a chargeable criminal offense, so this really section is largely meaningless.  In looking at reports of dragnets of illegal aliens in the news, authorities are not making distinctions between generally law abiding illegal aliens vs. gang members who happen to be illegal aliens.

Section 6

This section says that in addition to deporting said aliens, we will also assess fines and penalties and make them pay.  The Attorney General is to look into doing this and report back.

Section 7

This section directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to hire and train an additional 10,000 immigration officers.

Section 8

This section talks about section 287(g) if the INA.  Under this provision of the law, local and state law enforcement can take on parts of the role of federal immigration officers.

Section 9

This section discusses actions to be taken against sanctuary jurisdictions.  These include withholding of monies such as grants as well as generating reporting of crimes committed by persons who should have been handed over to the feds for deportation, but were not, so as to shame the jurisdiction into compliance.  Frankly, I've never seen the reports mentioned under (b).  I don't know if they exist.

Section 10

This section directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to change policy by rescinding "Priority Enforcement Program" and reinstituting "Secure Communities".

Section 11

This section directs the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General to ensure both sides have enough resources to handle more immigration cases in the future as a result of implementing the policies in this EO.

Section 12

This section directs the Secretary of State to impose sanctions provided for in law against countries who do not accept deportees.

Section 13

This section seeks the creation of an office which will provide services to crime victims where the perpetrator was an illegal alien that should have been deported.  There are to be quarterly reports.  I have not heard anything in the news about what these reports say.

Section 14

This section indicates illegal aliens are not protected by some provisions of the Privacy Act.

Section 15

This section calls for 2 reports, one in April, 2017 and one in July, 2017.  I don't know if these reports are intended to be public or posted on the agency website.

Section 16

This section calls for more statistical reporting to be provided on an on-going basis.

Section 17

This section directs the Office of Personnel Management to start the process to get those 10,000 new immigration officers hired.

Section 18

This section includes the usual legal fine print to assure the constitutionality of the EO.

My Commentary

Well, in hindsight, this was a prelude to the travel ban and clearly showed how the administration's focus was on immigration.  The campaign had promised that 11 million illegal aliens would be removed from the US and that measures, such as the wall along the US-Mexico border, would stop other illegal aliens from entering the US.
With regards to section 8 of this EO and Section 287(g) of the INA, this provision has been in law for some time including when the previous administration had used it to be able to achieve deportation rate of upwards of 400,000 illegal aliens a year in a couple of years.  In a book I read (I cannot remember the name, but the book was largely an attack on Eric Holder for its 350 pages), there were some stories of people who really wished there was some path to legal permanent residence or citizenship but because no such path exists, if someone gets caught and deported, it basically destroys their life and family.  This book also had some choice criticism that local law enforcement who had made agreements under 287(g) tended to use these powers capriciously and with bias and in some cases handing over bonafide US citizens who were then deported to Mexico.
There has been a lot of water under the bridge since the issue of this EO.  But the motivation for this EO and the policies it espouses are those of paranoia, xenophobia and exclusion and these all make the world a smaller place rather than a bigger place when you try to include people.  Do there need to be controls on entry into the US in place? Yes.  Do immigrants create new and bewildering problems?  Yes.  But despite these issues, the US has always grown and become greater when immigrants have arrived on our shores.

Executive Order 13769: Travel Ban 1.0

What the Executive Order Says

Executive Order (EO) 13769 is entitled "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States" and was issued January 27th, 2017.  It has 11 sections.  Subsequently, it has been referenced in EO 13780 and Proclamation 9645.  The Proclamation is effectively Travel Ban 3.0 and will be covered in the blog in the near future.

Section 1

This section describes the purpose of the EO.  This section states that US Citizens need to be protected by preventing others (non-citizens) from being able to enter the US.  This marks a 180 degree turn in the prevailing philosophy towards immigration and the role of the US in the world.  While the campaign foreshadowed these kinds of policies, this (and other policies) were a shock in seeing laid out in black and white rules and regulations stating certain kinds of people were no longer welcome.

Section 2

This section simply states a policy that in order to protect its citizen, certain foreign nationsl will be prevented from being admitted into the US.

Section 3

This section has numerous subsections.  (a) orders a review of what information is required to make a determination that a person from a given country is security or public safety threat.  (b) order a report created based on what is done in (a). (c) suspends entry for 90 days of nationals of certain foreign countries.  These are not named in the EO, but references section 217(a)(12) of the INA.  It was determined that this meant the countries of Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Somalia, Syria, Libya and South Sudan.  In (d), it indicates that whatever information is required to be submitted by foreign governments in the report created in (b), then the Secretary of State is going to ask countries to provide that information.  In (e), after 60 days of the request in (d), then the country will also go onto the black list if the foreign government does not comply with the request for information.

Section 4

This section talks about developing a uniform screen standard across all immigration programs to determine the risks of admitting a person.  In a way, this is probably a good thing to have although I would be surprised that there was any real inconsistency within the agency.  There are supposed to have been reports submitted to the President on how to implement this.  Unfortunately, with the court challenges and other events that had happened, I do not know if these reports were created and whether they were made public.

Section 5

This section firstly suspends entry of refugees for 120 days.  Additionally, it specifically prohibits Syrian refugees and limits the total number of refugees to 50,000 for 2017.  Finally it asks that the Secretary of Homeland Security look into whether local authorities can have input into the settlement process for refugees.  I don't know if this was meant to be able to give local authorities a veto to all, or just some refugees intended to be settled in a particular jurisdiction.

Section 6

This section seems to revoke the ability for certain lower level employees to be able to make case by case determinations.

Section 7

This section mentions that there is a project to capture biometric data on every traveler entering and exiting the USA.  This project is not complete, although personally, I have had to get fingerprinted and photographed every time I arrive by airplane into the US for the last couple of years.  Nonetheless, someone will have to prepare a status report every 180 days and send it to the President until it is fully rolled out.

Section 8

This section revokes waiving Visa Interviews.  For example, for Canadians, very often Visa interviews are waived.  And this make sense, but now this will insert an extra step for Canadians seeking any kind of Visa for entry into the US.

Section 9

This section directs the Secretary of State to review what other country's requirements for US Citizens to enter into them and compare it with what the US does.  If the other country imposes bigger controls, then the US shall adjust the controls for admittance to be similar.

Section 10

This section details additional reports that need to be provided.  These reports are advertising or marketing information that is intended to justify why the travel ban should be imposed.

Section 11

This section includes the usual legal fine print to assure the constitutionality of the EO.

My commentary

This was the original Travel or Muslim ban which, when there were huge protests against it and when it ruled unlawful and unconstitutional, it surprised the administration because they had been living in this bubble where everyone thought that keeping people out of the USA was a good thing.  The politics of inclusion would never allow such actions to be taken.  There are a number of accounts of events that happened after the announcement of the ban including protests at airports and emergency hearings at circuit courts which finally resulted in striking down some number of sections of this EO.  This resulted in the second travel ban which ultimately was also partially struck down until finally the third travel ban was created which I believe had been watered down a sufficient extent that people could no longer find constitutionality issues with it, but as well, it also lost a lot of its ability to actually stop people coming to the US.
Overall, this EO is heinous and it is clear that principles that produced such a document are anchored in paranoia about the world and fear of the "other".  Immigration can cause problems, but one has to believe that the benefits in the long term outweigh short term problems which could be solved with relative ease, if one simply listens attentively.

Executive Order 13770: Ethics Pledge

What the Executive Order Says

Executive Order 13770 is entitled "Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Appointees" and was issued on January 28th, 2017.  It has 6 sections

Section 1

This section provides the ethics pledge that has to be signed by every appointee in the executive branch.  There are 8 subclauses of requirements and following that language that binds the signatory to committing to the requirements.

Section 2

This section provides definitions for "Administration", "Appointee", "Covered executive branch official", "Executive agency", "Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended", "Foreign government", "Foreign political party", "Former client", "Former employer", "Gift", "Government official", "Lobbied", "Lobbying activities", "Lobbying disclosure act", "Lobbyist", "On behalf of another", "Particular Matter involving specific parties", "Participate", "Pledge", "Post-employment restrictions", "Registered lobbyist or lobbying organization".  And where these definitions reference definitions and requirements in laws, then it means those laws as written as of January 20th, 2017.

Section 3

This section provides for waivers.  However, there appears to be no requirement to make the waiver public.

Section 4

This section defines who is responsible for administration of the pledge and retention of the records such as signed pledges and waivers granted under section 3.

Section 5

This section gives guidance to heads of agencies as well as the Attorney General on how to deal with violations to the pledge and what the penalties for violation are.

Section 6

This section first revokes EO 13490 which was the Pledge of Ethics for the prior administration.  It also goes on to state that where there are conflicts between this EO and prior EO's, then this EO prevails.  Finally, there is the standard legal fine print to assure the constitutionality of the EO.

My commentary

There were a number of criticism issued at the time and these have by and large been wholly forgotten give the number of other firestorms that have plagued the administration.  First, it was pointed out that the language in (1) of section 1 allows appointees to lobby government, just not one out of the many executive branch agencies. (3) of section 1, does seem to strengthen the lobbying restrictions, but it depends very much on specific interpretations of the words used.  (4) of section 1 is a good thing.  This restricts former government employees from becoming lobbyists for foreign governments.  I am just not sure if this is restating what is already in law like (2) or if it is new.  Similarly (5) and (8) of section 1 are simply affirmations to follow current law.
With regards to section 5, one issue with this is that there are no provisions for criminal penalties.  In other words, no one can be sentenced to jail for the violation of the ethics pledge.  Of course, any egregious act such as accepting bribes is a criminal offence that carries criminal penalties of its own, but there is clearly an incentive to game the system such that after the end of employment, actions which violate no laws, but violate the pledge can be done with impunity, especially if the current administration is no longer in power.
In comparison between the pledge is EO 13490 vs. the one in this EO, it looks like there is more in this EO, but yet what seems to have been added are perhaps more holes than substance.

Executive Order 13771: Regulatory agenda

What the Executive Order Says

Executive Order (EO) 13771 is entitled "Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs" and was issued on January 30th, 2017.  It has 5 sections.  This Executive Order also gets referenced in several subsequent EO's such as EO 13777, EO 13783 and EO 13790.

Section 1

This section defines the purpose of the EO which essentially is a statement that endorses a "small government" approach to policy making within the executive branch.  The center piece of this EO is the rule that for any new regulation, two regulations have to be rescinded or eliminated.

Section 2

This section discusses the concept that new regulations also have to be cost-neutral.  Subsection (d) states that the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is to provide guidance on how to make these determinations.  One exception to this rule is where it is justified that laws do not allow for such cost-neutrality to be achieved.

Section 3

This section discusses that the costs of regulation need to be considered during the annual executive branch budgeting process.  The process is intended to be driven by targets set by OMB for each agency.  This EO is modifying the process defined in EO 12866.  Again, the Director of the OMB is to provide additional guidance on the details of how this is going to work.

Section 4

This section provides a definition for the terms "Regulation" and "Rule".

Section 5

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

My Commentary

At the time this was released, it was noted that other countries have had similar regulatory reduction measures in place and one notable example was the United Kingdom.
It should be noted that EO 12866 has been amended several times by different administrations.  There were 21 hits in my search on the Federal Register website and due to the age (it was issued in 1993), there may be additional documents that need to be pulled from the national archives.
It is acknowledged that over-regulation can occur.  Regulations can be written in such a way that they include circumstances to which they apply that were never intended and can simply not make any sense.  As a part of my job, I sometimes have to look into the Code of Federal Regulations.  It is often written by lawyers for lawyers.  And since the amount of regulations is so large and even though they try to keep things together, there are cross-references that one needs to know about for which a lay person casually reading the regulation is completely unaware.  For me this raises the philosophical question as to how can one create a society of 300 million in a way that maintains all the member's rights and freedoms justly?  In a village of 1000 people or a small town of 10,000, there can easily be a sense of inclusion such that people generally understand how to behave, a shared agreement on what one's moral compass should tell them to do in undefined cases.  But scaling that up to the size of 300 million seems difficult.  As brilliant as the constitution is, and there have been a few existential questions that have been overcome, one does have to wonder if it will be victorious once again.
Limitations placed on individuals through regulation are usually to prevent issues that have the character of the tragedy of the commons.  Burning trash or leaves in one's back yard is an example here.  If everyone were to do so, it would significantly raise air pollution and that would be bad for everyone even though any one person's contribution would be small.  I think that most people can understand such arguments and do not mind that regulation and enforcement mechanism exist.
Other kinds of regulations, along the lines which provide for fiduciary responsibility, are ones where there is a significant asymmetry in power between participants to a transaction.  Many regulations are limitations placed on government itself.  Other regulations are directed at businesses which are monopolies or oligopolies and as a result can force terms of contract which are very one-sided and the less powerful participant does not realistically have the option to walk away.
In conclusion, I've never really seen anything more than anecdotal stories that there is over-regulation.  I can understand that starting a small business can be a daunting endeavor, especially for someone who did not grasp that the business has a much larger set of regulations to which they have to comply than an individual who might be pursuing a hobby that incidentally earns beer money.  There is merit in reviewing obstacles to starting small businesses, but using such a situation to slash requirements on large businesses or government such that they could potentially harm citizens is wrong.