As back-to-back natural weather disasters dominate headlines, the use of federal emergency powers has become a focal point.

It is important to recognize that these powers, often associated with the expansion of government control, can also be used strategically to reduce rules and regulations, thereby providing relief and promoting resilience for those who most need the flexibility to rebuild .

During his first month in office in 2021, Joe Biden issued a series of executive orders revoking several Trump-era directives, as part of a broader agenda to dismantle the previous administration’s deregulatory policies in the pursuit of progressive goals.

Among these directives, particularly relevant in light of the suffering caused by Hurricanes Helene and Milton, was Trump’s Executive Order 13924 entitled “Regulatory Relief to Support Economic Recovery.” This order had been issued less than a year earlier, at the height of the COVID-19 episode.

Trump’s order, three years into an administration that had already instituted a regulatory cost-containment strategy, allowed agencies to further ease regulatory burdens on those struggling with the economic fallout from the health and economic crisis.

EO 13924, which Biden is expected to reinstate, expedited review of rules that could be permanently suspended or modified and directed agencies to “rescind, modify, waive, or grant exemptions from regulations and other requirements that may impede economic recovery. It specifically recognizes that small businesses, in particular, need clarity and fairness during times of crisis. Uniquely, it also grants enforcement discretion to businesses struggling during the pandemic.

Some of this may sound like standard regulatory relief rhetoric, but EO 13924 represented something more significant. What made him remarkable and unique was his bold use of emergency powers to shrink rather than expand government.

“The heads of all agencies are directed to use, to the fullest extent practicable and consistent with applicable law, any emergency authorities that I have previously invoked in response to the COVID-19 outbreak or that are otherwise at their disposal to support the economic response to the COVID-19 epidemic. The heads of all agencies are also encouraged to promote economic recovery through non-regulatory actions..”

Biden’s revocation of this particular Trump directive was reminded of me again by a column by my CEI colleague Ryan Young, titled “#NeverNeeded Regulatory Hindering Hurricane Recovery.” Young stressed that unnecessary federal and state regulations can hinder recovery efforts and reiterated his calls for removing outdated and obstructive rules. These include obstacles to private relief efforts, counterproductive and absurd protests against “price gouging,” regulations on professional licensing, distortions related to subsidized flood insurance, and the notorious Jones Act, which may restrict the delivery of essential supplies to affected areas.

Trump’s order wasn’t just intended to temporarily relax the rules (had he remained in office); he also asked agencies to consider making beneficial changes permanent. Biden should never have revoked this directive. Its unwise decision to rescind EO 13924 closed the door to targeted regulatory relief that could now be vital to hurricane recovery. A reinstatement – ​​or updated version – of EO 13924 is urgently needed and should be maintained as an ongoing program. Hurricanes and other natural disasters require a flexible response, not regulatory bottlenecks that delay recovery. Red tape related to permits, licensing, and compliance can create unnecessary obstacles for communities working to rebuild quickly. Most importantly, this flexibility is essential for resilience and preparation for future shocks.

Reinstating some version of Trump’s order would not only help address immediate post-hurricane rebuilding needs, but also provide a model for handling future crises, whether natural disasters or economic downturns . Additionally, restoring a mindset of flexibility and downsizing would help control government overreach and ensure that agencies act with fairness and transparency, thereby avoiding the “unfair surprise” of administrative enforcement (as EO 13924 states) that businesses may face when trying to comply with changing regulations.

As in Trump’s original order, any reinstated action must adhere to strict legal limits, operating “consistent with applicable law” (a phrase appearing five times in Trump’s order). Let us be clear: Trump’s restoration of order should not be interpreted as a call for an expansion of emergency powers, which have a tendency to be abused and therefore must be curtailed through legislation. Instead, a reinstatement could clarify that while agencies exercise emergency powers to streamline the recovery, they should not be misused to expand government control, as some progressives might be tempted to do in the name of so-called crises like climate change, “housing insecurity.” or “the care economy”. The expansion of emergency powers has become an important feature of crisis exploitation; the call here is for recognition of the “urgency” that government interventions can provoke, artificially provoke or prolong the challenges and difficulties faced by communities.

Ultimately, the goal of restoring order and building resilience is not only to respond to today’s hurricanes, but also to lay the foundation for how governments can and must act in future emergency situations. Trump’s deregulatory measures in the era of COVID-19 provide a still-relevant lesson in how regulatory flexibility can benefit crisis recovery.

Reversing the typical expansion of government reach in the name of emergency powers is what made EO 13924 stand out, and it can be done again.

To find out more, see:

“Developing a “Crisis Abuse Prevention Act” to Contain the Federal Government”

“The case for wasting crises: How an abuse prevention law can help curb rampant government growth”

“America needs an emergency declaration to end all emergency declarations”