Basically all regulations will be required to have expiration dates. They can be extended but I think it said they would need to be reexamined every year and allow for public comment.

It's a big labor burden. There is some part of this that is a good idea, but it all depends on how it is implemented by the regulating agencies, and if it ends up being overly burdensome

Edit: the part that is a good idea is the idea of requiring periodic review of laws and regulations. This is not a good faith effort to do that, but that's what I meant. A more reasonable timeframe is every 10 to 20 years. Think about the old laws and regulations related to sex that are still on the books in many states.

[–] Trimatrix@lemmy.world 48 points 5 days ago (1 children)

So burden the already burdened agencies that just got burned more with loss of administrative labor that was probably equipped to review and triage these now expiring regulations?

[–] expatriado@lemmy.world 34 points 5 days ago (1 children)

and every year, which is too high of a frequency

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 11 points 5 days ago

Doesn't matter when they all get repealed the first year

[–] adarza@lemmy.ca 39 points 5 days ago

it's all basically illegal in the first place. the executive can't just 'undo' or change laws like this. that's the job of congress, not the occupant of 1600 penn ave.

if congress wants to, ya know... keep their fucking jobs.. they'll wake the fuck up and evict him.

[–] phdepressed@sh.itjust.works 26 points 5 days ago

These regulations are written in the blood of our ancestors. The burdening (yearly for everything come sept 2026) and thus repeal of most regulations will spill our blood and our children's blood.

This is illegal and unconstitutional and Republicans are just rolling over and expecting us to roll over too.

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 14 points 4 days ago (1 children)

No. It's idiotic so have something go up for debate so often. Especially when letting some of the things in here expire for a single year could decimate our waterways and forests. All for nothing but a few rich assholes to make even more money.

Why should ALL of these need put up for vote and debate every year? Seems like it would be better and more proper to try and remove one if enough people found it to cause an issue.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 8 points 4 days ago

Seems like the kind of thing DOGE would say is ridiculous if DOGE was actually about DOGE.

I look forward to our yearly $20-30 million investigation into if lead pipes for water are a good idea! I'm sure Trump knows some great people he can pay to ensure the report is accurate every year for that much money!

[–] deur 5 points 5 days ago

No. Shut the fuck up.

[–] Vorticity@lemmy.world 14 points 4 days ago

Here's the thing that really scares me. The laws are still on the books and will likely remain so, but this signals to all of the companies who hate these laws that they're not going to be enforced for at least four years. So, they can go nuts for the next four years because DOJ won't enforce shit, even if SCOTUS tells Trump he's a bad boy.

[–] wildncrazyguy138@fedia.io 18 points 5 days ago

Guess they’re not going to mind all this salt being thrown on their golf course then.

[–] Arya@lemm.ee 2 points 5 days ago

"...This order directs certain agencies to incorporate a sunset provision into their regulations governing energy production to the extent permitted by law, thus compelling those agencies to reexamine their regulations periodically to ensure that those rules serve the public good..."

"Sec. 4. Zero-Based Regulating. (a) To the extent consistent with applicable law, each of the Covered Agencies shall issue a sunset rule, effective not later than September 30, 2025, that inserts a Conditional Sunset Date into each of their Covered Regulations. (b) The sunset rule shall provide that each Covered Regulation in effect on the date of this order shall have a Conditional Sunset Date of 1 year after the effective date of the sunset rule..."