No Holiday Break for the Administrative State—and None for CRF

As 2025 drew to a close and the new year began, much of Washington slowed down. Congress recessed, agencies issued year-end press releases, and policymakers spoke about reflection, transition, and reset. But the administrative state did not take a holiday—and neither did the CPAC Foundation's Center for Regulatory Freedom.

In the final weeks of December and the opening days of January, CRF remained fully engaged across a wide range of federal agencies, filing substantive comments on major regulatory proposals affecting communications, energy, banking, environmental policy, healthcare, transportation, housing, and administrative law itself. These filings were not procedural check-the-box submissions. They reflected sustained vigilance, deep subject-matter engagement, and a consistent commitment to statutory discipline, economic realism, and constitutional limits—precisely when regulatory overreach often accelerates.

The end of the year is traditionally a fertile period for regulatory expansion. Agencies rush to finalize agendas, entrench policy frameworks, and lock in interpretive positions before political winds shift. CRF’s work during this period reflects an understanding of that reality and a refusal to cede ground simply because the calendar turns.

Across multiple agencies, a clear pattern emerged: CRF repeatedly pushed back against the use of paperwork, guidance, financing criteria, and supervisory discretion as substitutes for clear statutory authority and accountable rulemaking.

Nowhere was this clearer than in CRF’s engagement with the Federal Communications Commission. In comments addressing the FCC’s proposal to revise its broadband consumer label rules, CRF highlighted how a well-intentioned transparency mandate had metastasized into an ongoing compliance and paperwork regime. What Congress intended as a consumer information tool had evolved into a prescriptive architecture involving formatting mandates, archiving requirements, and constant updating obligations—particularly burdensome for smaller providers. CRF supported the FCC’s effort to eliminate unnecessary elements, while warning against the broader tendency for disclosure rules to become self-perpetuating regulatory platforms.

CRF also weighed in on the FCC’s “Build America” proceeding, which addresses state and local barriers to broadband and wireless deployment. There, CRF emphasized that modern communications networks are interstate systems whose deployment can be effectively blocked by fragmented permitting regimes, excessive fees, and discretionary local conditions. CRF supported disciplined federal pre-emption where sub-federal actions operate as effective prohibitions, while stressing that such pre-emption must remain tethered to statutory authority and not drift into general technology regulation.

Energy and infrastructure policy featured prominently in CRF’s year-end work. In comments to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Department of Energy, CRF strongly supported the NRC’s proposed “Sunset Rule,” which would subject non-core regulations to periodic review under a zero-based regulatory budgeting framework. CRF argued that regulatory accretion imposes especially high costs in the nuclear sector, where long project timelines and capital intensity make regulatory certainty essential. Importantly, the rule preserves all core safety and licensing requirements while restoring accountability and discipline to the regulatory code.

CRF also supported DOE’s interim final rule establishing Energy Dominance Financing. As electricity demand surges due to artificial intelligence, data centers, and industrial reshoring, CRF has consistently warned that the electric grid—not capital availability in the abstract—is the binding constraint on growth. The EDF rule appropriately refocuses federal financing on deliverable capacity, reliability, and output while removing non-statutory ESG and DEI gatekeeping criteria that previously slowed projects and distorted investment decisions.

Environmental regulation was another area of sustained engagement. CRF filed comments on EPA’s proposed revisions to PFAS reporting under the Toxic Substances Control Act, supporting EPA’s recognition that TSCA is a risk-management statute—not a comprehensive hazard inventory. The original PFAS reporting rule imposed sweeping retrospective obligations with little relevance to exposure or regulatory decision-making. CRF argued that overbroad data collection diverts analytical resources, undermines statutory deadlines, and turns regulation into paperwork for its own sake.

CRF also addressed EPA’s proposed revisions to hazardous waste combustor standards under the Clean Air Act. In those comments, CRF emphasized that hazardous waste combustors are essential environmental infrastructure that safely manage the byproducts of a modern industrial economy. Treating them solely as emissions sources ignores their role in reducing overall environmental risk, enabling materials recovery, and supporting energy production. CRF urged EPA to respect statutory limits, reflect operational reality, and avoid regulatory approaches that discourage innovation or delay permitting reform.

Financial regulation was another front where CRF remained active. In comments to the Treasury Department, FDIC, and OCC on the definition of “unsafe or unsound practices,” CRF supported efforts to restore clarity and proportionality to bank supervision. For too long, vague concepts such as reputational risk and informal examiner expectations have expanded supervisory discretion and fueled debanking—cutting lawful businesses and individuals off from financial services for reasons unrelated to material financial risk. CRF argued that anchoring supervision to demonstrable financial harm is essential to restoring neutrality, predictability, and the rule of law.

CRF also engaged the Internal Revenue Service on proposed regulations governing domestically controlled Qualified Investment Entities. The IRS’s 2024 adoption of a domestic-corporation look-through rule had increased uncertainty, raised capital costs, and worsened housing affordability by discouraging investment in U.S. real estate. CRF supported the IRS’s proposal to repeal that rule, arguing that housing supply depends on predictable tax treatment and that national security concerns should be addressed through appropriate legal tools—not tax complexity.

Healthcare and administrative law issues were not overlooked during the holiday period. CRF submitted comments to the Food and Drug Administration and the Office of Management and Budget on the extension of information collection requirements tied to Emergency Use Authorizations. CRF warned that repeated extensions risk normalizing emergency governance and converting EUA conditions into standing regulatory obligations without notice-and-comment rulemaking. The Paperwork Reduction Act, CRF argued, must function as a real constraint—especially when emergency authorities are involved.

Finally, CRF weighed in on the Federal Highway Administration’s proposed information collection for the PROTECT Act grant program. While recognizing Congress’s intent to improve infrastructure resilience, CRF cautioned that narrative-heavy applications, recurring post-award reporting, and open-ended evaluation requirements risk using paperwork as a substitute for statutory standards. Such regimes, CRF warned, disadvantage smaller and rural applicants and embed discretionary policymaking through reporting rather than law.

Taken together, these filings tell a clear story. While others paused for the holidays, the administrative state continued to expand, reinterpret, and entrench regulatory power. CRF remained busy precisely because vigilance is most necessary when scrutiny is lowest.

Regulatory overreach does not announce itself with a single dramatic rule. It advances incrementally—through reporting requirements, guidance documents, financing criteria, and supervisory expectations that quietly reshape behavior. CRF’s work at the close of 2025 and the start of 2026 reflects a commitment to pushing back against that drift, agency by agency, docket by docket.

The calendar may have turned, but the mission remains the same: ensuring that regulation is grounded in law, economics, and reality—and that the freedoms of Americans, especially small businesses and innovators, are not sacrificed to administrative convenience.