Last month, the federal government eliminated an online tool that allows advocacy groups like UCS, as well as businesses and other organizations, to collect and submit public comments on rules and other actions by federal agencies. Without this tool, it is harder for Americans to have their voices heard in policymaking. It is just one of many ways that the Trump administration is shutting out the US public from sharing their experiences, expertise, and evidence to shape public policies.
According to a new UCS analysis, Access Denied: How the Trump Administration Is Eliminating Public Input, under President Trump’s leadership, federal science agencies are routinely and inappropriately bypassing notice and comment when updating or removing regulations. This means that regulations that may impact our air, water, climate, food, health care, transit, and communities are being changed, and often eliminated, without input from the public. This violates one of the most basic, legally enshrined rights that the US people have in our democracy – to have our voices heard in government decisionmaking.
President Trump directs federal agencies to ignore the public
Just over six months into his second term, President Trump has issued a flurry of deregulatory executive orders, including one that directed federal agencies to eliminate regulations deemed “unlawful” or “unnecessary.” The White House later issued a memo that told federal agencies to use a loophole called the “good cause” exemption—which has historically been allowed in very few instances, like emergencies—to roll back rules “without notice and comment.”
Usually, when a government agency issues a new a regulation, or proposes to eliminate a regulation, the agency is required by law to notify the public about the proposal, allow people and organizations to submit comments on those proposals, and respond to the substance of those comments when issuing a final rule (this is often referred to as “notice and comment”). But in the aforementioned memo, the Trump administration told federal agencies to use the “good cause” exemption to skip that process altogether and issue final rules without first accepting comments from the public.
Uninvited and ignored
Our analysis looked at rules issued between January 20 and July 31, 2025 by six key science agencies: the Departments of Agriculture (USDA), Energy (DOE), Health and Human Services (HHS), the Interior (DOI), and Transportation (DOT), as well as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). We found that notice and comment was bypassed in nearly 31 percent (182 out of 591) of final rules issued by these agencies, with DOT doing so most often. Roughly 45 percent of these were final rules issued without notice, where comments are usually not accepted.
Our analysis also found that federal agencies are often using two types of final rules—“direct final” and “interim final”—instead of notice and comment. In direct final rules, the agency issues a final rule without notice, but retroactively accepts comments on it for a specified period. If the agency receives at least one adverse comment, the agency is supposed to withdraw the rule; otherwise the rule takes effect at a future date. In interim final rules, the agency issues a final rule that is effective immediately but accepts comments for a specific period and may choose to amend the rule based on those comments. However, our analysis found that, so far, federal agencies have largely not withdrawn or changed direct or interim final rules as a result of comments received, though some are still under review.
We also found that in nearly two-thirds of these actions, federal agencies cited the “good cause” exemption for bypassing notice and comment. And in roughly a quarter of the actions, agencies gave no explanation at all. DOE, HHS, and USDA most often failed to provide a reason for bypassing notice and comment.
A threat to our democracy
Our research shows that these six agencies are abusing the “good cause” exemption (or in some cases, providing no explanation at all) to change or eliminate regulations without letting the public know or providing us with an opportunity to weigh in. (Even in those instances in which agencies did allow for public comment, these regulations were largely implemented without any acknowledgment of the comments or adjustments in response.)
In some cases, agencies state that they are eliminating outdated or obsolete regulations, but this doesn’t matter. Whether it’s creating a new rule or repealing an existing one, we, the US public, have a legally enshrined right to be given notice about a federal agency’s actions, to be given an opportunity to weigh in, and to receive a response from the agency on substantive comments.
Cutting out the public from decisionmaking is not democratic: it is authoritarian. And ensuring the US public has the right to notice and comment is not a high bar: it is the bare minimum. Agencies can also provide town halls, accept oral comments, and organize alternate forums to gather input, but this is not happening either. It is just one of many ways that the Trump administration is dismantling our democratic safeguards in favor of corporations and the ultra-wealthy that stand to benefit from deregulation. Federal science advisory committees are being dismantled, scientists and agency staff who review comments and update our regulations have been fired en masse, science-based information removed from government websites, and technical assistance funds and grants to communities blocked. These actions show that the administration’s campaign rhetoric about transparency and accountability are insultingly empty promises, masking a blatant grab for power.
The US public needs fair access
While federal agencies may not currently be empowered or equipped to meaningfully engage the public in decisionmaking, state and local governments can still do so. A new UCS guide, Fair Access: Guidance for Meaningful Public Participation in Government Decisionmaking combines community lived experience, peer-reviewed research, and government guidance to provide lawmakers and agencies with best practices to ensure meaningful engagement.
The guide offers six overarching recommendations and countless resources to ensure that the US public has access, standing, and influence in government decisionmaking. Read the guide here and see additional resources for public participation in government decisionmaking here.