Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
President: Barack Obama
Reaffirmed cost-benefit review public participation flexible regulation and retrospective review of existing rules.
Status: In effect. Is Executive Order 13563 still in effect? Yes. EO 13563 remains an operative supplement to EO 12866; current rulemaking also applies later regulatory-management directives.
What does Executive Order 13563 do?
EO 13563 strengthened the executive branch's regulatory-review standards without replacing the system established by EO 12866. Obama required agencies to protect health, welfare, safety and the environment while considering growth, innovation and competitiveness. The decision-making test was a reasoned judgment that benefits justified costs, with attention to alternatives, cumulative burdens and the best available science. Signed order.
The order also addressed how the public could participate. Where feasible and legally permitted, proposed rules should have meaningful online comment opportunities, generally at least 60 days, and accessible technical records on regulations.gov. Agencies were to seek affected parties' views before proposing rules when appropriate. They also had to consider performance-based standards, information disclosure and other flexible approaches instead of assuming that a single prescribed method of compliance was always necessary. Signed order.
Before and after
Before the order
EO 12866 already supplied centralized review, regulatory planning and benefit-cost principles. EO 13563 reaffirmed that structure and emphasized participation, coordination and scientific objectivity. It added a specific assignment for each covered agency to develop a preliminary plan for periodic review of significant existing regulations within 120 days, making review of old rules part of ongoing management. Signed order.
After the order
Agencies had to look backward as well as evaluate new proposals. They could modify, simplify, expand or repeal an existing rule when evidence showed that doing so would improve its effectiveness or reduce unnecessary burdens. The order did not define successful retrospective review as repeal alone. EO 13610 subsequently required recurring progress reports and public suggestions. Trump's January 31, 2025 EO 14192 added a separate regulatory-cost and offset regime; that later policy must be distinguished from revocation of EO 13563. Signed order. Sources: EO 13610: retrospective-review accountability; EO 14192: 2025 regulatory framework; 2026 Coast Guard rule applying regulatory review standards.
Who had to do what
| Agency / office | Action | Timing / position |
|---|---|---|
| Covered executive agencies | Assess benefits, costs, alternatives and science; promote public participation and coordination; develop periodic retrospective-review plans. | Preliminary retrospective plans within 120 days; comments generally at least 60 days where feasible and lawful. |
| Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs | Receive agency preliminary plans for ongoing review of existing significant regulations. | Within 120 days of January 18, 2011. |
| Agency rulemaking officials | Provide accessible online dockets and seek affected-party input before proposed rules when feasible and appropriate. | During rule development and comment period; subject to applicable procedural law. |
What happened next
Obama signed EO 13563 and ordered preliminary retrospective-review plans. Official source
EO 13610 added reporting and public-participation requirements for retrospective review. Official source
Trump issued EO 14192, adding the current administration's distinct regulatory offset and cost controls. Official source
The Coast Guard continued to discuss EO 13563 and EO 13610 in a mariner-training rule. Official source
Legal and source detail
How it works legally
The signed order invoked the Constitution and laws generally and preserved agencies' statutory mandates. It could not override a law requiring a particular standard, substitute an executive calculation for a legally required criterion, or dispense with the Administrative Procedure Act. Benefits and costs were to be quantified using the best available methods, but equity, dignity, fairness and distributional effects could be discussed qualitatively when appropriate and legally permissible. The definition of agency follows EO 12866, rather than silently expanding every requirement to every independent regulator. OIRA receives retrospective-review plans; the order does not give regulated firms an automatic right to defeat a rule by alleging an imperfect cost calculation. Its no-private-right clause and appropriations limitation remain important. A rule's validity still rests on its authorizing statute, required procedure and reasoned explanation, even when its preamble separately documents compliance with presidential review policies. Signed order. Sources: EO 13610: retrospective-review accountability; EO 14192: 2025 regulatory framework; 2026 Coast Guard rule applying regulatory review standards.
Sources by type
If a source is unavailable, first check the cited publisher or another official repository. The cited publisher remains the authority.
Primary and official sources
Orders, laws, court records and official implementation material.
How we checked this
Last checked against the sources above on September 15, 2026. How we research →