The Trump administration’s elimination of offices, funding cuts, termination of data collection and distribution, and encouragement of staff departures have eroded the deep expertise and institutional knowledge that once defined federal agencies. As agencies increasingly reach beyond their own expertise to justify decisions, it is worth reexamining the presumption of agency expertise that traditionally underpins heightened judicial deference.
This analysis explains that presumption and offers a framework of questions to assess when heightened deference is warranted: Does the decision require technical expertise? Does the agency retain relevant expertise? Has it consulted or relied on that expertise? Are departures from expert recommendations scientifically justified? And is the agency’s scientific process transparent and traceable? Each question is discussed in the context of EPA’s proposal to withdraw the 2009 Endangerment Finding — the scientific determination that greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare, and the foundation for regulating greenhouse gas emissions across multiple sectors.