On October 21, 2025, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Office of Management and Budget issued Memorandum M-25-36, Streamlining the Review of Deregulatory Actions. The directive sets shorter timelines, encourages the use of legal exemptions to bypass lengthy procedures, and reduces consultation requirements with stakeholders, signaling a renewed push by OIRA to cut regulatory red tape. While the memorandum is aimed at accelerating regulatory reform, agencies must balance the benefits of speed against the potential for reduced regulatory stability.
Accelerated Review Timelines
Pursuant to Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, OIRA coordinates interagency review of proposed and final “regulatory actions” (an umbrella term that includes regulations and guidance) before they are published. For a significant regulatory action, OIRA sets a maximum of 90 days for its review, with a possible one-time extension of up to 30 days.
The October 21 memorandum establishes a strict 28-day review period for most deregulatory actions, with an even shorter 14-day period for regulations considered “facially unlawful.” By setting these deadlines the administration aims to ensure that agencies move quickly to eliminate regulations deemed unnecessary or burdensome, reducing the lag between identification and repeal.
For agencies new to the regulatory review process that are undertaking significant regulatory reform, such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, these timeframes lend greater certainty to the timelines for action.
Streamlined Consultation Processes
Traditionally, agencies consult with state and local governments, tribes, and other stakeholders before taking regulatory actions. The streamlining memorandum directs agencies to reduce or eliminate certain consultation requirements when issuing deregulatory actions or to credit public comment periods as sufficient.
The memorandum provides a nonexhaustive list of executive orders that ordinarily require agencies to conduct specific consultations; it instructs agencies to treat deregulatory actions as presumptively exempt from these consultation and analytic requirements under the listed executive orders.
Utilization of the ‘Good Cause’ Exemption
The memorandum encourages agencies to rely on the “good cause” exemption under the Administrative Procedure Act to use the “interim final rule” process.
Normally, agencies are required to publish proposed regulations and allow a period for public comment before implementing or repealing rules. The “good cause” exemption allows agencies to bypass the public notice-and-comment period when they determine that compliance with ordinary rulemaking procedures would be “impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.”
The memorandum specifically states that “facially unlawful regulations” satisfy this bar and provides guidance on how an agency can determine whether a regulation is unlawful, including by reviewing whether the rule exceeds the agency’s statutory authority or conflicts with higher legal authorities such as statutes or court rulings.
The memorandum reinforces and reminds agencies of the April 9 presidential memorandum Directing the Repeal of Unlawful Regulations, emphasizing that agencies should proactively identify and eliminate unlawful rules under the “good cause” exemption, prioritizing in particular a regulation’s lawfulness under 10 recent US Supreme Court decisions.
Interim final rules—where an agency will publish a final rule and then seek public comment after the fact—allow for rapid implementation of changes. Use of this process, however, must be weighed against reduced transparency and stakeholder engagement before changes are made. Overuse of the interim final rule process could lead to litigation after the fact that undermines regulatory stability. As such, agencies will have to carefully weigh the costs and benefits of using the “good cause” exemption.
Agency Record-Building for Deregulatory Actions
The memorandum emphasizes the importance of developing thorough deregulatory records, highlighting that deregulation can provide both quantitative and qualitative benefits. Agencies are encouraged to use cost-benefit analyses whenever possible, but qualitative factors—such as private liberty and market freedom—can also justify regulatory repeal. The memorandum encourages agencies to engage with OIRA early to determine when quantitative analysis is required versus when only qualitative reasoning is sufficient.