As I’ve written before, comment on proposed federal rules. It is an act of engaged citizenship. We need an engaged citizenry. Comments do more as well:
First, it is a way to have some democratic accountability of the executive branch. Interested stakeholders can petition for redress of their grievances and bring about their particular and peculiar expertise to a subject that the government may or may not have as much in-depth knowledge. Sometimes comments can point out “DOH” moments to the agencies and allow for course correction.
Secondly, notice and comment is a core component of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The APA governs most of the rule-making regulatory state. A core APA tenet is rule-making entities can only implement final rules when the rules are neither capricious nor arbitrary. If comments identify a significant consequence or assumption of the rule that is not addressed in the final rule response to comments, that is good evidence that the rule may be flawed.
Stan Dorn makes a very astute point about the federal bureaucracy:
Important to comment with solid evidence and multiple arguments. With fewer staff, they’ll have a harder time meeting APA standards for proper response.
— Stan Dorn (@standorn.bsky.social) February 18, 2025 at 11:14 PM
Find things that you both give a damn about and you know something about… And then write to the relevant agency when they propose new regulations or interpretations and rules. Sometimes your efforts will have policy impact or litigation impact as an engaged citizen.
frosty
Another good citizenship thing to do! Sigh. If only retirement were taking up so much of my time. It’s been about a week since I called my useless Senator and Rep. Every time I think of something to say the Shit Tsunami changes the subject.
I guess I can keep it simple. “I didn’t vote for Musk. You didn’t vote for Musk – he wasn’t on the ballot. Stop this illegal neutering of Congress (you!) and the Constitution. NOW!!!”
Timill
@frosty: “Are you mice or men, and where should I send the cheese?”
frosty
@Timill: That sums up the whole Republican Congress, doesn’t it?
Miss Bianca
Wait, I’m confused. You mean, we still have regulatory agencies that are allowed to make regulations we can comment on?
SpaceUnit
Not sure our federal agencies are going to be listening to the public anymore.
zhena gogolia
I don’t want to live in this country any more. We are the scourge of the world.
Baud
@Miss Bianca:
Deregulation is also considered regulation for comment purposes.
frosty
@zhena gogolia: Not quite. We’re the anticipated scourge of the world. Give us time … say, a couple more weeks … and we’ll be there. Definitely.
Betsy
Great points, David! Thanks for bringing this forward!
David Anderson
@SpaceUnit: Make them listen to the public or sue them for APA violations to burn time
SpaceUnit
@David Anderson:
Okay, so a sand-in-the-gears strategy. But it seems to me that this ought to be carried out by special interest groups that have the resources to take legal action. Most private citizens wouldn’t have the wherewithal to take a federal agency to court.
Jackie
@zhena gogolia:
My first thought was the world doesn’t blame “us American citizens”… until I remembered the majority of “us” voted him into office.
“We” indeed deserve it.
What Have the Romans Ever Done for Us?
@SpaceUnit: The Interest groups will sue but can sue over a comment someone else made if they can make argument that the comment reveals some deficiency that makes the rule arbitrary and capricious.
I’m a federal worker whose main job is writing supporting documents for rulemakings – specifically regulatory impact analyses. My thoughts are if they let us all go someone should stand up and organization that would pay us to rip to shreds whatever hacky BS the loyalists write to support deregulatory actions. We write these and know where to look for flaws. The courts have become much pickier over the past decade and poorly supported rules get slapped down with regularity. So if it’s something you know about commenting is helpful.
SpaceUnit
@What Have the Romans Ever Done for Us?:
Got it. I’m just worried that these corrupted agencies will not maintain sufficient transparency for the strategy to work.
Who is going to be in charge of collecting such comments and disclosing them to the public?
ETA: Also, what federal agency enforces the APA?
Goku (aka Amerikan Baka)
@SpaceUnit:
It’s “AI”, I know, but this summary seems correct based on what I read in Wiki:
narya
@SpaceUnit: it’s not entirely sand—it’s a way of making sure the rules take into account things that the original draft or change didn’t address. There’s a lot of expertise, but experts still miss things.
SpaceUnit
@Goku (aka Amerikan Baka):
Thank you very much for that. Of course I find this troubling:
Judicial review is all well and good, but it seems to me that the process will be entirely dependent on whistleblowers from these agencies that have been reconstructed in bad faith.
SpaceUnit
@narya:
Yes. I don’t question the intent of the APA. I’m just wondering how it can effectively be enforced.
Sister Golden Bear
Public comment is now open for passport gender marker changes, so something concrete you can do now to fight trans erasure is going to each of the three proposed passport rules, and submit comments.
My suggestion: be unique, argue for trans-inclusive policies, against the constitutionality of the changes, etc. Even if it’s sand in the gears, we need every little bit of help we can get.
The Department of State has published 30-day notices for public comment for changes to the following passport forms:
DS-11 new passport application
DS-82 passport renewal
DS-5504 name change or data corrections
In all these cases, the changes made include changes related to the “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government” executive order, and requesting the biological sex at birth.
dc
Is there a sort of “one stop shop” for proposed rules changes so that one could find and follow rule change proposals in their area of knowledge/experience?
SpaceUnit
@Sister Golden Bear:
Okay, here’s the perfect example.
My confidence that our comments to the State Department regarding such matters will not be filtered from public disclosure is approximately 0%. You know, give or take.
dc
I found the answer in the linked post: https://www.regulations.gov/
Yet since it’s a government site, I wonder if it’s going to continue to be available. Is there an organization that is dedicated to providing a sort of portal for proposed rule changes?
dc
@SpaceUnit: So let’s just sit and worry, that will definitely help.
SpaceUnit
@dc:
We’re dealing with some serious shit right now and don’t have the luxury of flailing away in a broken system just to imagine that we’re all being heroes. Please.
Timill
@dc: Well, of course:
“There are bad times just around the corner,
There are dark clouds hurtling through the sky
And it’s no good whining
About a silver lining
For we know from experience that they won’t roll by,
With a scowl and a frown
We’ll keep our peckers down
And prepare for depression and doom and dread,
We’re going to unpack our troubles from our old kit bag
And wait until we drop down dead.”
David Anderson
@SpaceUnit: the special interest groups sue but the comments give them an attack surface
dc
@SpaceUnit: Please! Of course you know what will work. No one else does, except people who agree with you! Naturally!
SpaceUnit
I do not know what will work. We’ve been having a serious and civil discussion about the nuts and bolts of a specific strategy to confront the rightwing takeover of federal agencies. Chill.
Butch
Since I’ve done coding on federal contracts….a comment that simply says I support or I oppose gets lumped into a category called “nonsubstantive” and isn’t considered further. It isn’t a vote. Your comment needs to be relevant and sound like you’ve actually read the proposed regulation.
Anonymous At Work
10/10 on this. I’ve done it before and will do it again as rules in my necks of the woods come up. Commenters like myself (but better writers and much more vicious than I dared) forced significant rewrites of some awful rules, championed by one of the Emmanuels, no less.