Executive Order 12372: Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs
Summary
Executive Order 12372 makes state and local consultation part of decisions about covered federal financial assistance and direct federal development. Ronald Reagan signed it on July 14, 1982. Instead of requiring one federally designed clearinghouse arrangement everywhere, it lets states organize a process reflecting their own governmental structures. Federal agencies must use that process to obtain official views and try to accommodate the concerns it conveys. The continuing practical question for an applicant is whether the particular program is covered and whether its state participates.
Status: In effect. Yes. EO 12372 remains the intergovernmental-review framework, as amended by EO 12416 and supplemented by EO 13132. OMB's July 2026 list continues to identify participating state contacts. Coverage depends on the program and the state's chosen review process; this is not a universal state veto over federal awards.
Key facts at a glance
| Signed | July 14, 1982 |
|---|---|
| President | Ronald Reagan |
| Federal Register | 47 FR 30959; published July 16, 1982 |
| Current label | In effect |
| Amended by | EO 12416 |
| Related orders | EO 12416, EO 13132, EO 12612 |
| Checked | October 25, 2026 |
What it requires today
Section 1 requires opportunities for consultation by elected officials whose governments would contribute nonfederal funds or be directly affected by the proposed assistance or development. Section 2 then explains how an agency works with a state-created review process: communicate early, obtain the official state and local views, and make efforts to accommodate the concerns received. If accommodation is impossible, federal officials must explain their decision promptly. A consultation obligation and an obligation to accept every objection are different things.
States can delegate review in particular instances to local elected officials, and state and local officials can exclude particular federal programs from their process. For projects affecting an interstate area, federal agencies should seek coordination across the affected states. These provisions make the actual designated process important: an applicant cannot infer the right contact, covered program or review route simply from the order's number.
The order also encourages simplification of state-plan submissions where law permits. Agencies should accept state planning and budgeting arrangements when those can substitute appropriately for separate federal requirements. It discourages narrowly constituted, federally financed planning bodies that lack adequate accountability to elected state or local officials. Those administrative preferences do not override a statutory planning requirement or authorize an agency to spend money outside an appropriation.
Who it affects
The direct duties fall on federal awarding and development agencies, OMB, and officials operating a participating state's process. Applicants for covered assistance encounter the framework through application instructions and state review arrangements. Local governments can have an important role even when a state office is the published contact. A state with no designated contact has not thereby lost access to federal assistance: OMB's current list explains that applicants in nonparticipating states may send materials directly to the federal awarding agency.
How it came about
The 1982 order replaced the earlier November 8, 1968 coordination memorandum and directed revocation of OMB Circular A-95. It preserved the earlier rules temporarily until replacement procedures were issued, avoiding a gap during the changeover. Reagan's approach shifted emphasis from a single federal clearinghouse model toward processes selected by states in consultation with local governments. EO 12416 subsequently adjusted the transition, including the September 30, 1983 effective date for replacement rules and the September 30, 1984 compliance report.
What agencies did under it
OMB's official July 2026 Single Points of Contact list is positive evidence that the review framework continues to operate. It identifies designated entities and explains that states omitted from the list have chosen not to participate. The list is a directory, not a definitive inventory of every covered federal program. The awarding agency's program instructions and the state's process still determine what a particular applicant must submit and when.
Agency implementation appears in program-specific regulations. HHS's intergovernmental-review rules are in 45 CFR part 100; other departments maintain their own provisions. The useful sequence is to identify the awarding department, read the opportunity's review instructions, and check the current state contact where applicable. This explains why an old copy of a contact list or another department's rules cannot establish the requirements of every grant.
Section 5 required agencies to submit proposed implementing rules to OMB, while section 6 authorized OMB to coordinate administration. The original reporting deadline is historical, but the state-consultation framework does not expire merely because that report was due decades ago. A modern funding announcement's reference to EO 12372 concerns this continuing framework rather than a renewed 1984 reporting obligation.
The SF-424 application form asks in question 19 whether the application is subject to state review under EO 12372. Justice's current OJP application guide explains the sequence: the funding notice says whether the program is covered; for a covered program, applicants check OMB's contact list and follow a participating state's process before making the appropriate selection. Where the funding notice says the program is not covered, OJP directs applicants to select the not-covered response. The question is not asking whether the state has approved the application's merits or guaranteed a federal award.
Implementation records: OMB: July 2026 Single Points of Contact list; HHS intergovernmental-review regulations, 45 CFR part 100; OJP: current SF-424 question 19 and state-review instructions.
Amendments and family tree
EO 12416 amended EO 12372 in 1983; it did not replace the entire consultation system. EO 13132, signed in 1999, supplied a broader federalism policy and is recorded as supplementing EO 12372. The Federal Register also points readers to EO 12612 as part of the historical federalism context. These links should not be collapsed into a chain of automatic revocations. The current OMB contact list and the absence of a whole-order revocation in the reviewed disposition record support the present label, with each program still governed by its own law.
Court cases
No court ruling specifically on EO 12372 was identified in the official order, disposition and agency sources reviewed as of October 25, 2026. A dispute over a grant decision would require the particular assistance statute, program rules and agency record. The consultation direction should not be described as a judicially established state veto. This guide identifies the administrative framework and does not infer a court-approved outcome for an individual application.
Common questions
Does EO 12372 let a state veto a federal grant?
No blanket veto appears in the order. Agencies must consult, try to accommodate concerns, and explain decisions when concerns cannot be accommodated. The legal power to approve or refuse an award comes from the applicable program law and implementing rules.
What if my state has no SPOC?
OMB says states not included in its current list have chosen not to participate and that applicants there may send materials directly to the federal awarding agency. The program's own eligibility and application instructions still apply.
Is every federal assistance program covered?
No. The order permits state and local officials to exclude programs from their process, and agencies identify coverage through their implementing arrangements. An application should be checked against the actual program instructions rather than a general assumption about all federal money.
Did the old reporting deadline end the order?
The September 1984 compliance report was a specific historical assignment. It was not an overall sunset for the consultation requirements. OMB's July 2026 contact list provides contemporary evidence of the continuing administrative system.
Legal basis
The preamble cites the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act's coordination authority, the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act, and 3 U.S.C. 301. Repeated limits concerning what law permits are substantive boundaries on implementation. EO 12372 organizes consultation within existing federal programs; it does not enact a new grant program, authorize an otherwise unlawful award, or displace Congress's conditions for assistance.
Further reading
Sources
Cite this page
EO Explained, “Executive Order 12372: Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs”, checked October 25, 2026. https://eoexplained.com/historic-orders/historic-12372-intergovernmental-review-of-federal-programs. Include an access date when citing this dated account. For the presidential instrument itself, cite 47 FR 30959 and the official text.
Last checked
. EO 12372 was checked against its signed record, current disposition and cited implementation sources for the status and scope described above. Report an error or a later official source.