Judges vs. Reform: How Courts and Bureaucrats Block Elected Power Under the APA

When President Trump signed his executive order to cap wasteful overhead costs at federal research agencies like the NIH, NSF, and DOE, most Americans assumed the President had the authority to manage the federal budget. But in the weeks that followed, university groups and contractors raced to court—and now, federal judges are putting key parts of that order on hold.

The lawsuits claim that the spending cuts are “arbitrary and capricious.” To the average taxpayer, that sounds like bureaucratic gibberish. But in Washington, those three words are the legal equivalent of pulling the emergency brake on any executive reform effort.

So what’s really going on here? Why are judges overriding the elected President’s attempt to rein in federal spending?

The answer lies in an obscure but powerful law passed in 1946 called the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). And over the past decade, it’s become one of the most powerful weapons the so-called “deep state” has to fight back against political change.

What the APA Was Meant to Do

The APA was originally passed to bring order and transparency to America’s growing administrative state. As federal agencies like the EPA, HHS, and USDA expanded in the post–New Deal era, lawmakers wanted a consistent way to ensure those agencies didn’t abuse their power. So the APA laid out a basic process for how agencies must write new rules and make decisions.

It required:

Agencies to publish proposed rules publicly
The public to have a chance to comment
Courts to review rules that appeared unlawful, abusive, or poorly justified

It all sounded reasonable at the time. But over the years, these procedural safeguards morphed into a weapon.

“Arbitrary and Capricious” – A Bureaucratic Veto

One of the most commonly abused phrases in the APA is “arbitrary and capricious.” Courts can strike down an agency action if it seems rushed, inconsistent, poorly documented, or if it reverses previous policy without a detailed explanation.

On paper, it sounds like common sense. But in practice, it’s turned into a bureaucratic veto. If a President wants to cut funding, streamline rules, or undo a bloated program, courts now routinely demand lengthy paperwork trails, cost-benefit justifications, and public comment periods—even for internal budgeting decisions.

If anything in that process isn’t perfect, activist judges can throw the whole policy out.

That’s exactly what’s happening now to Trump’s reforms. The courts aren’t saying the President lacks authority to manage spending. They’re saying he didn’t check enough bureaucratic boxes before doing it.

When Courts Pick and Choose

Compare this to the Biden administration’s attempt to cancel student debt in 2022. The Supreme Court struck it down—not on APA grounds, but because it clearly exceeded the President’s constitutional authority. The Court said Biden needed an act of Congress to forgive hundreds of billions of dollars in loans.

That ruling made sense to many Americans, regardless of political affiliation. Presidents can’t simply ignore the Constitution.

But when it comes to Trump-era reforms, the courts are using the APA to sidestep the constitutional question altogether. They’re not arguing the President lacks authority—they’re arguing he didn’t follow the correct process, even when the authority is clearly his.

🍁 Make a One-Time Contribution — Stand Up for Accountability in Vermont 🍁

Chevron and the Rise of Agency Power

For decades, courts gave agencies the benefit of the doubt under a doctrine known as Chevron deference. If a law was vague, judges deferred to the agency’s interpretation—as long as it was “reasonable.”

That doctrine, born in 1984, led to massive expansions of bureaucratic power, especially under progressive administrations. Agencies could reinterpret laws and make sweeping new rules with minimal pushback from courts.

But that tide began to turn recently. In West Virginia v. EPA (2022), the Supreme Court ruled that if an agency claims broad new powers—especially on major issues like climate policy—it must point to clear authorization from Congress. That new test is called the Major Questions Doctrine, and it’s weakened Chevron substantially.

Still, APA challenges remain a favorite legal tool for blocking change, especially spending cuts or deregulation efforts.

It’s Not Just Science Grants — The APA Is Blocking Everything

If you’ve been watching the headlines lately, it seems like there’s a new lawsuit or injunction every single day trying to stall a Trump policy. That’s not your imagination — it’s the Administrative Procedure Act in full swing, being wielded by activist groups, contractors, and bureaucrats to grind the gears of the executive branch to a halt.

What started with Trump’s attempt to cap indirect overhead costs at NIH and NSF has ballooned into a full-blown administrative war. The same 15% cap was applied to the Department of Defense, and that, too, was blocked by a federal judge after defense contractors and advocacy groups claimed the rule was “rushed” and lacked proper justification.

And it hasn’t stopped there. The APA is now being used to hold up nearly every major executive action coming out of the White House, regardless of how lawful or routine the action may be.

Here’s just a snapshot of what’s already been jammed up:

Immigration enforcement orders: Temporary restraining orders issued on detention directives, visa restrictions, and asylum reforms, all claimed to be “procedurally defective.”
Border wall construction: paused by APA challenges over environmental review timelines.
Agency rule changes at HHS and DOE: frozen for “failure to consider public comment sufficiently.”
Contractor reform efforts: blocked after nonprofits claimed funding changes would “harm underserved communities.”
Rollback of federal DEI mandates: tied up in lawsuits over alleged lack of impact analysis.

What do all these cases have in common? The courts aren’t saying Trump can’t do these things — they’re saying he didn’t file the right paperwork first. That’s the power of the APA: it allows judges to paralyze the presidency based on procedural nitpicking, not on whether the policy is legal, effective, or constitutional.

It’s not just about science grants anymore. It’s the entire executive branch under siege — by lawsuits claiming the President didn’t ask permission in just the right way.

The Bigger Picture

This is the crux of the issue: The President of the United States has the constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws and manage the executive branch. But the APA has given unelected bureaucrats, contractors, and judges a near-permanent veto over any reform they don’t like.

Whether you’re a conservative, moderate, or even a frustrated progressive, that should concern you.

Government is supposed to be run by elected leaders—not by paperwork, and certainly not by the courts second-guessing budgeting decisions from the Oval Office.

If Americans want real reform, it may take more than just winning elections. It may require rethinking how much power the administrative state should actually have—and whether a 1946 law is still serving the republic it was meant to protect.

If you found this information valuable and want to support independent journalism in Vermont, become a supporter for just $5/month today!

Dave Soulia | FYIVT

#fyivt #deepstate #governmentwaste #executivepower

Support Us for as Little as $5 – Get In The Fight!!

Make a Big Impact with $25/month—Become a Premium Supporter!

Join the Top Tier of Supporters with $50/month—Become a SUPER Supporter!