On October 21, 2025, the Office of Management and Budget issued Memorandum M‑25‑36, titled “Streamlining the Review of Deregulatory Actions,” instructing federal agencies to accelerate repeal of rules the administration considers outdated, unlawful, or inefficient. Signed by Acting OIRA Administrator Jeffrey Bossert Clark, the guidance directs agencies to invoke the Administrative Procedure Act’s “good cause” exception to forgo traditional notice-and-comment procedures when issuing interim final rules to rescind regulations deemed “facially unlawful.”

The memorandum frames the effort as an expansion of Executive Orders 14192 and 14219, reiterating a commitment to deregulate “at an unprecedented scale” and offering detailed procedural recommendations to move repeals more quickly. Central to the guidance is a broad interpretation of what qualifies as “facially unlawful,” and an explicit endorsement of interim final rules that allow immediate effect without prior public input.

For public health advocates and communities that depend on regulatory safeguards, the directive alters longstanding expectations about administrative transparency and participation. Notice-and-comment rulemaking has been a cornerstone of the regulatory process, giving scientists, clinicians, community organizations and affected residents the chance to submit evidence, raise concerns, and shape final agency decisions. Removing that step for a class of repeals shortens the timeline for agency action and narrows opportunities for stakeholders to influence outcomes that can affect environmental quality, workplace safety, healthcare access, and other determinants of health.

Legal scholars say using the good cause exception at scale is likely to prompt litigation, since courts have historically scrutinized claims that notice-and-comment procedures are impracticable or unnecessary. The administration’s reliance on interim final rules could lead to a patchwork of contested rulings as judges weigh whether agencies genuinely faced urgent circumstances justifying the procedural shortcut. That litigation, alongside rapid regulatory turnover, can create regulatory instability, complicating compliance for states, health providers, and community-based organizations that deliver essential services.

The guidance also carries equity implications. Regulatory protections frequently address hazards that fall disproportionately on low-income communities and people of color, including pollution controls, occupational safeguards and access-related rules that influence healthcare affordability and availability. Fast-tracked repeals without robust public engagement risk amplifying existing disparities by removing protections before affected communities can document harms or propose mitigations.

Policy responses will shape how far and how fast agencies proceed. Congress could consider statutory measures to tighten or clarify procedural requirements, while state governments and advocacy groups may pursue legal challenges to preserve participatory rulemaking. For health agencies in particular, the memorandum raises difficult trade-offs between administrative goals of deregulation and the duty to preserve safeguards grounded in scientific evidence.

As agencies begin to operationalize M‑25‑36, the tension between administrative efficiency and democratic accountability will be central. The choice to shorten or circumvent public processes in the name of speed will not only determine the fate of individual rules, but also shape whose voices are heard in decisions that bear on collective health and equity.