Congressional Control and Scott Pruitt's EPA

 

The discussion of the competing theories of bureaucratic discretion and Congressional control made me want to find a modern example to see how each theory holds up. Given the prominence of the EPA as well as the controversy surrounding Scott Pruitt's tenure it seems like a compelling example. In 2017, Trump’s appointed EPA head, Scott Pruitt, began a drastic rollback of environmental protections that were pursued under the Obama administration. He loosened Obama-era fuel standards for cars and light-duty trucks, convinced Trump to exit the Paris Climate Accord, and repealed the Clean Power Plan.

The case of the EPA seems to confirm much of Weingast and Moran’s findings; both the Senate and the President exerted control as the principle in Pruitt’s one-year tenure. For instance, Pruitt’s decision to repeal the Clean Power Plan was prompted by an executive order from Trump. Additionally, his confirmation was no rubber stamp. Senate Democrats attempted to delay his confirmation vote by dragging out the debate. He was ultimately confirmed by a narrow 52-46 margin. Most surprisingly, Pruitt even advocated to restrict the budget of his own agency, arguing the EPA had become bloated. From the perspective of Niskanen, in which the agency head seeks to maximize their agency’s power, this choice is incomprehensible. Finally, when Pruitt’s tenure became mired in corruption scandals, the legislature exercised its ability to institute sanctions. Various oversight bodies launched a total of 15 investigations into his actions, including a Republican-led one from House Oversight committee. These ultimately led to Pruitt’s resignation in 2018.