Last updated 3 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.
The way the United States government operates today looks very different from what the founders envisioned. While the Constitution created a system based on three separate branches of government, a vast network of federal agencies now wields enormous power over daily life.
This shift from “Traditional Governance” to what many call the “Administrative State” represents one of the most significant transformations in American government.
Understanding these two different approaches to governance is essential for any citizen who wants to grasp how their government actually works. Traditional governance, rooted in the Constitution, emphasized elected representatives making laws through a deliberative process with clear checks and balances. The administrative state, by contrast, delegates much lawmaking power to unelected experts in federal agencies who create detailed regulations affecting everything from the air we breathe to the food we eat.
This transformation didn’t happen overnight, and it carries profound implications for democracy, accountability, and individual liberty. The very existence of terms like “administrative state” signals a fundamental evolution from the original constitutional framework—one that has sparked intense debate about how power should be exercised and by whom.
Traditional Governance: The Founders’ Blueprint
To understand how far we’ve moved from the original system, we need to grasp what the founders actually designed and how it was supposed to work.
Core Principles of the Original System
The architects of the American republic, having experienced the overreach of monarchical power, designed a system with built-in skepticism toward concentrated authority. Their blueprint rested on several fundamental principles intended to limit government and protect individual freedoms.
Limited Government: A central tenet was that governmental power should be restricted, primarily through a written constitution, to safeguard civil liberties. As historical analyses note, “In a limited government, the power of government to intervene in the exercise of civil liberties is restricted by law, usually in a written constitution.” The U.S. Constitution enumerates specific powers granted to the federal government, with the understanding that powers not granted are reserved to the states or the people, as later affirmed by the Tenth Amendment.
Separation of Powers: To prevent the concentration of power, the founders divided governmental responsibilities into three distinct branches: the legislative branch (Congress) tasked with making laws, the executive branch (President) responsible for implementing and administering those laws, and the judicial branch (Courts) charged with interpreting laws and applying them to controversies. As James Madison and others experienced the violation of rights under a system lacking such separation, they “looked to the lessons of human nature and history to determine how best to structure a competent government that would promote liberty.”
Checks and Balances: Complementing the separation of powers, the system of checks and balances provides each branch with mechanisms to limit the powers of the other branches. Examples include the President’s power to veto legislation passed by Congress, Congress’s power to impeach and remove federal officials, and the judiciary’s power to review the constitutionality of laws and executive actions (judicial review).
Popular Sovereignty: A foundational belief was that the legitimacy of government derives from the consent of the governed. “The central tenet is that legitimacy of rule or of law is based on the consent of the governed.” This principle is famously expressed in the preamble to the Constitution: “We the People… do ordain and establish this Constitution.”
Rule of Law: This principle dictates that all individuals and institutions, including the government itself, are subject to and accountable under laws that are publicly known, fairly applied, and independently adjudicated. A key aspect is that “legal rules are made in advance and published,” ensuring predictability and fairness, as opposed to arbitrary, ad hoc decision-making.
Federalism: The U.S. system also divides power geographically between the national (federal) government and state governments. The federal government possesses powers enumerated in the Constitution, while other powers are reserved to the states or the people. This “dual sovereignty” was another layer designed to prevent over-centralization of authority and keep government closer to the people.
How Early American Government Actually Worked
In the early decades of the United States, the federal government’s structure and functions were markedly different from today. Congressional primacy was a key feature; Congress was generally the dominant branch in policymaking, with presidents deriving much of their authority over administrative matters from statutes passed by the legislature.
The federal government’s footprint was considerably smaller. Before the Civil War, American governance was “highly dispersed and remarkably decentralized,” with a great deal of governing authority concerning daily life—health, safety, morals, welfare, and economic regulation—remaining “in the hands of individual states” and a multitude of local entities.
Early federal “administration” was primarily focused on essential national functions such as operating the postal service, collecting customs duties, conducting foreign policy, and maintaining a national defense. Broad social and economic regulation by federal entities was not the norm. While there were some “federal bureaucratic initiatives” even before the Civil War, the scale and scope were vastly different from the extensive regulatory apparatus that would emerge later.
The Traditional Lawmaking Process
Under the traditional model, the legislative process, centered in Congress, was the primary engine for creating binding rules of general applicability. Laws originated from proposals debated and voted upon by elected representatives in the House and Senate. The President’s constitutional role was to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” (Article II, Section 3), which included the power to approve or veto legislation passed by Congress.
The judiciary’s role was to interpret these laws in the context of specific legal disputes brought before the courts. Enforcement of federal law was largely carried out by the established executive departments, such as the Department of Treasury or the Department of War (now Defense), and through the judicial system.
This system placed a high value on public deliberation and the explicit consent of the governed, expressed through their elected representatives, for the creation of laws that would bind society. This contrasts sharply with the administrative state model, where unelected agency officials develop detailed regulations, albeit often with statutory authorization and public input procedures.
The Rise of the Administrative State
The “Administrative State” describes the influential network of executive branch agencies that possess the authority to create, interpret, and enforce regulations. Often referred to as a “fourth branch” of government, these agencies are typically staffed by unelected officials who are considered experts in their specific fields.
The precise number of federal agencies currently in existence is difficult to pinpoint, with estimates from bodies like the Administrative Conference of the United States varying, underscoring the vast and somewhat sprawling nature of this governmental apparatus. This very ambiguity in its scale can make it challenging for citizens to fully grasp its reach.
Defining the Fourth Branch
The administrative state is characterized by executive branch agencies performing functions that, in a strictly traditional model, might be seen as belonging to the legislative, executive, and judicial branches separately. These agencies craft detailed rules that have the force of law (a quasi-legislative function), implement and enforce these rules and the statutes passed by Congress (an executive function), and resolve disputes arising under these rules and statutes, often through internal adjudication processes (a quasi-judicial function).
Justice Robert H. Jackson notably referred to administrative agencies as the “Fourth Branch,” arguing that their rise had “deranged our three-branch legal theory.” This characterization highlights the tension between the administrative state and the classical separation of powers doctrine.
Agencies range from large cabinet departments like the Department of Health and Human Services to independent regulatory commissions such as the Federal Communications Commission or the Securities and Exchange Commission. Their mandates cover nearly every facet of American life, from environmental protection and workplace safety to financial markets and consumer products.
Historical Development: From Progressive Era to Today
The conceptual underpinnings of the administrative state can be traced to the Age of Enlightenment, with its emphasis on rational thought as a tool for human and societal improvement. However, its more direct development in the U.S. began in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
The Progressive Era (1890-1920): Rapid industrialization, urbanization, and the increasing complexity of society created new challenges that existing governmental structures seemed ill-equipped to handle. Progressive Era reformers advocated for an “administrative apparatus run by those deemed experts untainted… by political ambitions.” Thinkers like Woodrow Wilson and Frank Goodnow championed the idea of separating politics from administration, envisioning a government where neutral experts could manage public affairs efficiently and scientifically. This period witnessed the creation of early regulatory agencies, such as the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1887, to oversee specific sectors like railroads.
The New Deal (1933-1939): The Great Depression spurred a massive expansion of the administrative state. President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal programs led to the creation of numerous agencies designed to address the economic crisis, regulate financial markets, manage labor relations, and provide social welfare. Agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, and the Federal Communications Commission were established during this time, marking a significant shift toward increased federal oversight and intervention in the economy and society.
The “Second Wave” of Regulatory Growth (Post-WWII to recent times): Following World War II, and particularly from the 1960s onward, another wave of regulatory expansion occurred. Driven by growing awareness of environmental issues, consumer rights, and workplace safety, new agencies were created. The Great Society programs of the 1960s, along with later bipartisan initiatives, led to the establishment of agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
The Modern Era (2017-Present): In recent years, the administrative state itself has become a prominent political issue. The Trump administration (2017-2021) emphasized deregulation, utilizing executive orders and appointments to roll back existing rules and reshape agencies. Conversely, the Biden administration has often sought to expand regulatory activity, particularly in areas like environmental policy and healthcare. Proposals for further significant changes, such as the creation of a “Department of Government Efficiency” to streamline or dismantle agencies, have been part of the political discourse.
How Agencies Function
Administrative agencies exercise their authority through three primary functions, which often mirror the powers traditionally separated among the three branches of government:
Rulemaking: This is the process by which agencies create regulations, often referred to as “rules,” which have the force and effect of law. These rules implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy based on statutory authority granted by Congress. In essence, agencies “legislate” through rulemaking. The Administrative Procedure Act generally governs this process, requiring public notice of proposed rules and an opportunity for public comment before a final rule is issued.
Adjudication: Agencies also have the power to resolve disputes related to their rules or the statutes they administer. This quasi-judicial function often involves formal hearings before Administrative Law Judges, who are independent adjudicators within the agencies. Agency adjudication results in orders that can settle specific disputes and, in some instances, establish policy precedents.
Enforcement: Agencies are responsible for ensuring compliance with their regulations and the laws they administer. This executive function includes conducting investigations, inspecting facilities, issuing fines and penalties, and initiating legal action to compel compliance. Some agencies even maintain their own enforcement personnel or police forces.
The combination of these legislative-like, judicial-like, and executive-like powers within individual agencies is a defining characteristic of the administrative state. While proponents argue this integration allows for efficient and expert governance, critics contend it violates the constitutional principle of separation of powers and concentrates too much authority in unelected bodies.
Key Differences and Tensions
The rise and consolidation of the administrative state have created a system of governance that operates alongside, and sometimes in tension with, the traditional model envisioned by the U.S. Constitution.
Making Laws: Congressional Legislation vs. Agency Rulemaking
One of the most significant distinctions lies in how binding rules are created. In the traditional governance model, laws (statutes) are enacted by Congress, composed of directly elected representatives. This process typically involves public debate, committee hearings, votes in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and finally, presentment to the President for signature or veto. This method emphasizes direct democratic accountability.
In contrast, the administrative state produces legally binding rules (regulations) through a process known as agency rulemaking. While agencies derive their rulemaking authority from statutes passed by Congress, the rules themselves are developed by agency staff, who are generally unelected experts in their respective fields.
The Administrative Procedure Act outlines the general procedures for most rulemaking. Key steps typically include:
- Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: The agency must publish a notice in the Federal Register detailing the proposed rule and the agency’s rationale.
- Public Comment Period: The public is given an opportunity (usually 30 to 60 days, or longer for complex rules) to submit written comments on the proposed rule. These comments can come from individuals, businesses, advocacy groups, and other stakeholders.
- Issuance of Final Rule: After considering the public comments, the agency issues a final rule, which is also published in the Federal Register. The agency must typically include a statement of the rule’s basis and purpose, and respond to significant comments received.
Although agency rules carry the force of law, much like statutes passed by Congress, they are created by officials who are “only indirectly accountable to the people.” Furthermore, the volume of rules issued by agencies often far surpasses the number of laws enacted by Congress each year, making agency rulemaking a primary source of new federal law.
Separation of Powers: A Blurring of Traditional Lines
The U.S. Constitution’s traditional governance model is built on a clear separation of powers among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, designed to prevent any one branch from accumulating excessive authority. Each branch has distinct responsibilities: Congress makes laws, the President enforces laws, and the Judiciary interprets laws.
The administrative state, however, often appears to blur these lines. Administrative agencies frequently combine functions that mirror those of the three traditional branches:
- Legislative-like functions: Through rulemaking, agencies create binding regulations that have the force of law.
- Executive-like functions: Agencies enforce these regulations and the statutes passed by Congress.
- Judicial-like functions: Agencies adjudicate disputes arising under their regulations, often through internal administrative courts and Administrative Law Judges.
This consolidation of powers within single agencies is a core concern for critics of the administrative state, who argue it bypasses the traditional checks and balances inherent in the separation of powers. As Justice Robert H. Jackson observed, administrative agencies “combine powers that the Constitution separates” and are arguably “subject to none of the checks imposed upon the three traditional departments.”
James Madison, a key architect of the Constitution, warned that “The accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands… may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” Thus, the concentration of these varied powers within agencies directly challenges the Founders’ primary mechanism for preventing governmental overreach.
Accountability and Oversight: Who Governs the Governors?
In a traditional governance framework, accountability is primarily ensured through direct electoral mechanisms and constitutional checks. The President and members of Congress are accountable to the people through regular elections. The branches check each other through powers like the presidential veto, congressional impeachment, and judicial review.
Accountability within the administrative state is a more complex and multifaceted issue. Several layers of control and oversight exist, though their directness and effectiveness are subjects of ongoing debate:
Presidential Control: The President, as head of the executive branch, exercises significant influence over most agencies. This includes the power to appoint and (often) remove agency heads, though some independent agencies have statutory protections against at-will removal by the President. Presidents also direct agency priorities through executive orders and policy directives. A key mechanism for presidential oversight is the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, located within the Office of Management and Budget, which reviews significant proposed and final regulations from executive agencies.
Congressional Control: Congress creates administrative agencies through enabling statutes, which define their powers and responsibilities. Congress also exercises oversight through committee hearings, investigations, and the appropriations process (controlling agency budgets). A significant tool is the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to pass a joint resolution of disapproval to overturn a new agency rule.
Judicial Control: Courts play a crucial role by reviewing agency actions to ensure they are lawful, constitutional, and follow proper procedures. Citizens and entities adversely affected by agency decisions can often seek judicial review. The extent of this review, particularly the deference courts give to agency interpretations, has been a major point of legal development and contention.
Public Control: Mechanisms for public involvement include the notice-and-comment process for rulemaking, which allows citizens and groups to provide input on proposed regulations (via Regulations.gov). The Freedom of Information Act provides public access to government records, promoting transparency. Some agencies also utilize advisory committees that may include public members.
However, the effectiveness of these oversight mechanisms is often debated. They are generally less direct than the electoral accountability of traditional governance. The complexity of agency operations and the sheer volume of regulatory activity can make meaningful oversight challenging for both Congress and the public.
Decision-Making: Democratic Representation vs. Expert Authority
A fundamental tension between traditional governance and the administrative state lies in the primary basis for decision-making. Traditional governance emphasizes that decisions, particularly those resulting in binding laws, should reflect the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives. The legitimacy of such decisions rests on democratic consent.
The administrative state, conversely, often prioritizes or heavily relies on the technical expertise and specialized knowledge of agency staff. The very rationale for creating many agencies was the perceived need for expert bodies to handle complex social, economic, and scientific issues that legislators might not be equipped to address in detail.
This delegation to experts is intended to lead to more informed, rational, and effective policy outcomes. However, it also raises concerns about a “democratic deficit” if these unelected experts are perceived as unaccountable, if their decisions diverge significantly from public preferences, or if their expertise is seen as biased or captured by special interests.
| Feature | Traditional Governance | Administrative State |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Lawmakers | Congress (elected representatives) | Agencies (often unelected experts, through delegated authority) |
| Basis of Authority | U.S. Constitution, statutes enacted by the legislature | Delegated legislative authority from Congress (via statutes), expertise |
| Key Historical Period of Dominance | Founding Era – early 20th Century | Mid-20th Century – Present |
| Approach to Separation of Powers | Relatively strict separation of legislative, executive, and judicial functions | Blurring of powers (agencies often perform rulemaking, enforcement, and adjudication) |
| Primary Mode of Decision-Making | Deliberation and voting by elected representatives | Expert analysis, technical assessment, rulemaking procedures (e.g., notice and comment) |
| Locus of Accountability | Primarily electoral (for Congress and President), constitutional checks | More diffuse: Executive oversight (President, OIRA), Congressional oversight (statutes, CRA, budget), Judicial review, Public input |
| Transparency of Lawmaking Process | Generally high (legislative debates, votes are public record) | Varies (rulemaking is public via APA, but internal agency deliberations and expert consultations may be less so) |
| Primary Justification | Popular sovereignty, consent of the governed, protection of liberty through structure | Efficiency, effectiveness, need for specialized expertise to address complex problems |
The Five Pillars: Understanding Agency Power and Control
To better understand the complex web of powers, constraints, and debates surrounding administrative agencies, scholars and analysts often refer to “five pillars” that structure the discussion. These pillars focus on the key areas of interaction and control related to agency action: nondelegation (legislative control), judicial deference (judicial control), executive control, procedural rights (public control), and agency dynamics (internal agency control).
Nondelegation Doctrine
The nondelegation doctrine is a fundamental constitutional principle rooted in Article I of the U.S. Constitution, which vests “all legislative Powers” in Congress. The doctrine posits that Congress cannot lawfully delegate these core legislative powers to other branches of government, including administrative agencies. In theory, this doctrine serves as a critical check on the growth of the administrative state by limiting the extent to which Congress can outsource its lawmaking responsibilities.
Historically, however, the Supreme Court has applied the nondelegation doctrine sparingly. The prevailing standard was established in J.W. Hampton Jr. & Co. v. United States (1928), which held that a congressional delegation of authority is permissible as long as Congress lays down an “intelligible principle” to guide the agency’s exercise of that authority.
This “intelligible principle” test has generally been interpreted leniently by the courts, allowing for broad delegations of power to agencies. As a result, the Supreme Court has only invalidated congressional delegations on nondelegation grounds in a very small number of cases, most notably Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan (1935) and A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (1935), both of which struck down provisions of the National Industrial Recovery Act during the New Deal era.
Judicial Deference: A Major Shift in 2024
Judicial deference refers to the principle that courts should, under certain circumstances, yield to an administrative agency’s interpretation of the law, whether it be a statute Congress has charged the agency with administering or the agency’s own regulations. This doctrine has been a cornerstone of administrative law, significantly shaping the balance of power between agencies and the judiciary.
The most significant form of deference was Chevron Deference, established by the Supreme Court in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984). This was a highly influential two-step framework. First, a court would determine if the statute in question directly and unambiguously addressed the specific issue. If Congress’s intent was clear, that intent would govern. However, if the statute was silent or ambiguous, the court would proceed to step two: determining whether the agency’s interpretation was “based on a permissible construction of the statute.” If the agency’s interpretation was reasonable, courts were required to defer to it, even if the court might have interpreted the statute differently.
However, a landmark shift occurred in June 2024 when the Supreme Court, in the consolidated cases of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, overruled Chevron deference. The Court held that the Chevron framework was inconsistent with Section 706 of the Administrative Procedure Act, which directs courts to “decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action.”
Following this decision, federal courts are now directed to exercise their independent judgment to determine the best meaning of a federal statute, without deferring to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguity. This decision signals a significant reassertion of judicial power in statutory interpretation and is expected to lead to increased scrutiny of agency actions, potentially making it easier to challenge regulations in court.
Executive Control of Agencies
The executive branch, headed by the President, exerts significant control over most administrative agencies through several key mechanisms:
Appointment and Removal Powers: The President appoints the heads of executive agencies (like Cabinet secretaries) and many leaders of independent agencies, typically with Senate confirmation. The power to remove agency officials is more complex. For heads of executive departments and some agencies, the President generally has broad removal power. However, for commissioners of “independent” regulatory agencies, the Supreme Court has held that Congress can limit the President’s removal power to specific causes like “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”
Executive Orders and Policy Directives: Presidents use executive orders to direct agency actions, set regulatory priorities, and establish procedures for regulatory review.
Budgetary Control and OIRA Review: The Office of Management and Budget, which includes the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, plays a powerful role in shaping agency agendas through the budget process and by reviewing proposed regulations for consistency with presidential policies and cost-effectiveness principles.
The Unitary Executive Theory: This theory posits that the President possesses broad, inherent authority over the entire executive branch, including administrative agencies. Proponents argue this ensures accountability, as the President is nationally elected. Critics worry it can lead to excessive politicization and undermine agency independence and expertise.
Procedural Rights
To ensure fairness and guard against arbitrary action by powerful administrative agencies, a system of procedural rights has developed, primarily codified in the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946. These rights apply to individuals, businesses, and other entities interacting with federal agencies. Key procedural rights include:
Notice: Individuals and entities are generally entitled to be informed of proposed agency actions that may affect their rights or interests. For rulemaking, this typically involves publication of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register.
Opportunity to Be Heard: Due process generally requires that affected parties have a meaningful opportunity to present their views before an agency makes a final decision. In rulemaking, this is primarily achieved through the public comment period. In formal adjudications, this includes the right to present evidence, call witnesses, and make arguments before an impartial decision-maker.
Impartial Decision-Maker: Decisions should be made by officials who are free from bias. In formal adjudications, Administrative Law Judges are expected to be impartial.
Reasoned Decision-Making: Agencies are generally required to provide a basis for their decisions. Final rules must include a statement of basis and purpose, and respond to significant public comments.
Right to Judicial Review: Final agency actions are generally subject to review by federal courts. Courts can set aside agency actions found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, not in accordance with law, unconstitutional, in excess of statutory authority, or unsupported by substantial evidence.
Agency Dynamics
The internal workings, structure, and culture of administrative agencies—collectively termed “agency dynamics”—also form a crucial pillar in understanding the administrative state. These internal factors can significantly influence how agencies interpret their mandates, set priorities, and interact with the public and other branches of government.
Agency Structure: Federal agencies exhibit diverse organizational structures. Some are large, hierarchical departments headed by a single Secretary, while others are independent regulatory commissions led by a multi-member, bipartisan board or commission. This structure can affect an agency’s susceptibility to political influence and its decision-making processes.
Expertise and Staffing: A defining characteristic of administrative agencies is their reliance on specialized expertise. Agencies employ scientists, economists, engineers, lawyers, and other professionals to deal with complex and technical issues. The quality and orientation of this expert staff are critical to an agency’s performance.
Agency Culture and Mission: Over time, agencies can develop distinct organizational cultures and a strong sense of mission. This can lead to dedicated public service but can also result in bureaucratic inertia, resistance to change, or an overly narrow focus that neglects broader public concerns.
Agency Capture: A persistent concern is “agency capture,” where an agency, created to regulate an industry in the public interest, becomes unduly influenced by or aligned with the very industry it is supposed to oversee.
Internal Review and Adjudication: Many agencies have elaborate internal processes for developing rules, making policy, and adjudicating disputes. The role of Administrative Law Judges is central to many agency adjudications, providing a formal hearing process that resembles a court trial, though ALJs are part of the executive branch.
The Administrative State in Daily Life
The administrative state is not an abstract concept confined to Washington D.C.; its actions and regulations have a profound and pervasive impact on the daily lives of all Americans and the operations of businesses across every sector.
How Federal Agencies Shape Your World
Understanding the role of specific agencies can make the concept of the administrative state more tangible:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): The EPA’s core mission is to protect human health and the environment. Through the Clean Air Act, the EPA sets national air quality standards and regulates emissions from industrial facilities, power plants, and vehicles. These regulations have led to significant reductions in harmful pollutants like lead, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter, resulting in demonstrably cleaner air and substantial public health benefits. For instance, compared to 1970 models, new cars are about 99% cleaner for common pollutants, a direct result of EPA standards that spurred innovations like the catalytic converter.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA): The FDA is charged with protecting public health by ensuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, the nation’s food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation, as well as regulating tobacco products. The FDA’s rigorous drug approval process aims to ensure that medicines are safe and effective before they reach patients. FDA food labeling regulations, such as the Nutrition Facts label and menu labeling requirements for chain restaurants, provide consumers with information to make healthier choices.
Federal Communications Commission (FCC): The FCC regulates interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable. The FCC allocates and licenses radio spectrum, a finite public resource, for various uses including broadcast television and radio, mobile phone services, Wi-Fi, satellite communications, and public safety. The FCC also works to combat illegal robocalls and caller ID spoofing.
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC): The SEC’s mission is to protect investors; maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and facilitate capital formation. The SEC requires public companies to disclose significant financial and other information so investors can make informed decisions. The SEC also investigates and prosecutes violations of federal securities laws, including insider trading, accounting fraud, market manipulation, and offering fraud.
| Agency | Primary Area of Regulation | Example of Impact on Citizens | Example of Impact on Businesses |
|---|---|---|---|
| Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) | Environmental standards (air, water, hazardous waste, chemical safety) | Cleaner air reducing asthma and other respiratory illnesses; safer drinking water; cleanup of contaminated sites | Compliance with emissions standards and pollution control measures; waste disposal regulations; opportunities in environmental technology |
| Food and Drug Administration (FDA) | Safety and efficacy of food, drugs, medical devices, cosmetics, tobacco products | Access to safe and effective medicines; informative food labels; protection from unsafe food and products | Drug approval processes; food safety protocols; labeling requirements; restrictions on tobacco marketing |
| Federal Communications Commission (FCC) | Interstate and international communications | Rules for internet service; efforts to reduce robocalls; access to broadcast media; emergency alert systems | Spectrum allocation and auctions for wireless services; broadcast licensing and content rules; regulations for telecom providers |
| Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) | Investor protection, market integrity, capital formation | Protection from investment fraud; access to corporate information for investment decisions | Mandatory corporate disclosure requirements; rules for securities offerings; compliance with anti-fraud provisions |
The Scale of Regulation: A Look at Growth
The expansion of the administrative state’s influence is vividly illustrated by the sheer growth in the volume of federal regulations over time.
The Federal Register: This daily publication of the federal government is where proposed and final rules, notices, and presidential documents are officially announced. In its inaugural year, 1936, the Federal Register contained 2,620 pages. By 1970, this had grown to 20,036 pages. The upward trend continued, reaching 74,258 pages in 2000, 81,405 pages in 2010, and 86,356 pages in 2020. More recently, the total page count for 2024 was 106,109 pages.
The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): Once rules are finalized, they are codified into the Code of Federal Regulations, which is the official compilation of all federal agency regulations currently in force. In 1960, the CFR comprised 22,877 pages. By 1975, it had swelled to 71,224 pages, and by the end of 2021, it stood at an extensive 188,346 pages—a 165% increase since 1975.
Economic Impact Estimates: A 2025 report from the Competitive Enterprise Institute estimated that compliance with federal regulations imposes an annual cost of at least $2.155 trillion on the U.S. economy. This report further translated this figure to an average annual cost of $16,016 per U.S. household. However, it’s important to note that quantifying the precise costs and benefits of regulation is complex. Regulatory agencies themselves conduct cost-benefit analyses for major rules, and their findings often suggest that the benefits (e.g., improved public health, environmental protection) outweigh the costs, sometimes substantially.
Navigating the System: How Citizens Can Engage
While the administrative state can seem vast and complex, mechanisms exist for citizens and organizations to participate in the regulatory process and to challenge agency decisions they believe are unlawful or harmful.
Public Participation in the Regulatory Process
Federal law, particularly the Administrative Procedure Act, mandates public participation in many agency actions, most notably in the development of new regulations. The primary channels for public engagement include:
Notice-and-Comment Rulemaking: This is the most common and formal way for the public to influence regulations. When an agency proposes a new rule or changes to an existing one, it must publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register. Following publication, a public comment period is opened (typically 30-60 days, but can be longer), during which anyone can submit written comments, data, or arguments. The website Regulations.gov serves as a central portal for finding and commenting on federal proposed rules.
Petitions for Rulemaking: Citizens and organizations have the right to petition a federal agency to issue a new rule, amend an existing one, or repeal a rule. While agencies are not always required to grant such petitions, they generally must give them due consideration.
Advisory Committees: Many agencies utilize federal advisory committees, composed of experts and stakeholders from outside the government, to provide advice and recommendations on policy matters and proposed rules. Meetings of these committees are often open to the public.
The Unified Agenda: Twice a year, the federal government publishes the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, which provides a forecast of rulemaking activities planned by agencies. This allows the public to anticipate upcoming rules and prepare to engage in the process.
Challenging Agency Decisions
When individuals or entities believe an agency action is unlawful, arbitrary, or harmful, several avenues for redress may be available:
Judicial Review: The Administrative Procedure Act generally provides for judicial review of “final agency action” for persons “suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action.” Lawsuits can be filed in federal court to challenge an agency rule or order on grounds that it is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations; without observance of procedure required by law; or unsupported by substantial evidence.
Internal Agency Appeals and Administrative Processes: Many agencies have their own internal appeal or review processes that must be exhausted before a matter can be taken to court.
Alternative Dispute Resolution: Agencies may offer or be required to participate in alternative dispute resolution methods like mediation to resolve disputes without formal litigation.
Specialized Adjudicative Bodies: For certain types of agency actions, Congress has established specialized bodies for review. For instance, federal employees can appeal certain adverse personnel actions to the Merit Systems Protection Board.
The Ongoing Debate: Arguments For and Against
The administrative state is not a static entity but a dynamic and often contested feature of American governance. Its existence, scope, and powers are subject to continuous debate among policymakers, legal scholars, courts, and the public.
Arguments Supporting the Administrative State
Supporters generally argue that administrative agencies perform essential government functions that Congress itself is ill-equipped to manage in detail:
Efficiency and Effectiveness: Agencies can often respond more quickly and flexibly to complex and rapidly changing problems than the more deliberative (and often slower) legislative process.
Expertise: Agencies are staffed by specialists (scientists, economists, engineers, etc.) who possess deep subject-matter knowledge crucial for developing sound regulations in technical areas like environmental protection, public health, and financial markets. Legislators, as generalists, may lack this specialized understanding.
Implementation of Broad Legislative Goals: Congress often passes laws setting broad policy objectives. Agencies are seen as necessary to translate these general mandates into specific, workable rules and programs.
Addressing Complexity: Modern society faces intricate challenges (e.g., climate change, global pandemics, sophisticated financial instruments) that require sustained, expert attention that agencies are designed to provide.
Arguments Against the Administrative State
Critics raise fundamental concerns about the administrative state’s compatibility with constitutional principles and democratic governance:
Violation of Separation of Powers: The most common critique is that agencies improperly combine legislative (rulemaking), executive (enforcement), and judicial (adjudication) powers within a single entity, undermining the Constitution’s separation of these functions among distinct branches.
Undermines Democratic Accountability: Unelected agency officials wield significant lawmaking and coercive power, diminishing the authority of elected representatives in Congress and potentially making citizens feel their votes matter less. This is sometimes referred to as a “democratic deficit.”
Lack of Transparency and “Hidden Government”: The sheer size and complexity of the administrative state, along with the technical nature of much of its work, can make it opaque and difficult for the public to understand, monitor, or influence.
Economic Burdens and Overreach: Critics argue that regulations often impose excessive costs on businesses, stifle innovation, and hinder economic growth. They may also contend that agencies exceed their statutory authority.
Agency Capture: There is a persistent risk that agencies may become too closely aligned with the industries they are supposed to regulate, prioritizing industry interests over the broader public good.
The Supreme Court’s Recent Stance
The Supreme Court plays a pivotal role in defining the powers and limits of the administrative state. In recent years, the Court has shown an increasing willingness to re-examine long-standing doctrines related to agency authority. The most significant recent development is the June 2024 decision overturning Chevron deference.
The practical consequences of overturning Chevron are expected to be substantial:
- Increased Judicial Scrutiny: Federal courts will now exercise their own independent judgment to determine the “best interpretation” of a statute, without deferring to an agency’s view of an ambiguity.
- More Challenges to Agency Rules: Litigants challenging agency rules may find it easier to succeed, as they no longer need to overcome the hurdle of a deferential standard of review.
- Impact on Agency Rulemaking: Agencies may become more cautious, ensuring their regulations are very clearly grounded in unambiguous statutory text.
- Pressure on Congress: With agencies having less interpretive leeway, Congress might feel compelled to draft more specific and detailed statutes to achieve its policy goals.
Current Ideas for Reform
The ongoing debate about the administrative state has generated numerous proposals for reform, particularly from those critical of its current size, scope, and accountability mechanisms:
Legislative Reforms: The REINS Act (Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act) would require explicit congressional approval for any “major rule” before it could take effect. The Midnight Rules Relief Act would allow Congress to disapprove multiple agency rules issued late in a presidential term through a single joint resolution.
Executive Branch Reforms: Proposals include establishing a “Department of Government Efficiency” aimed at modernizing federal operations, streamlining functions, and potentially dismantling or consolidating agencies. Other ideas involve expanding OIRA review to cover more agency actions.
Judicial and Adjudicatory Reforms: Debates continue about the role and constitutional status of Administrative Law Judges, with reform ideas including transforming agency adjudicators into adjuncts of Article III courts or establishing independent administrative law courts.
The direction of any such reforms is highly contingent on the political landscape, with different presidential administrations and congressional majorities pursuing divergent agendas—ranging from significant deregulation and dismantling of agency powers to efforts aimed at strengthening regulatory oversight in specific areas.
The tension between traditional governance and the administrative state reflects fundamental questions about how democracy should function in a complex modern society. While the administrative state provides expertise and efficiency that the founders’ system may have lacked, it also raises serious concerns about accountability, transparency, and the concentration of power in unelected hands. Understanding both models and their ongoing interaction is essential for any citizen who wants to comprehend how American government actually works today and the debates that will shape its future.
Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.
