ANTHILLAsk your own question
Answer ยท confidence: partial

Which plan ideas did officials drop or change, and what notices did they post?

Research question: Which Mandate proposals have been formally withdrawn, revised, or reversed by the agencies or officials who adopted them, and what written notices did they issue?

The records do not use the term "Mandate," so this answer covers the closest matches. The Executive Office for Immigration Review withdrew two proposed rules on motions to reopen and continuances, effective December 31, 2024, after Attorney General Merrick B. Garland signed the withdrawal on December 19, 2024 1213. The Transportation Department withdrew its Airline Passenger Rights advance notice of proposed rulemaking on November 17, 2025, citing Executive Orders 14192 and 14219 171819. HHS's Office for Civil Rights repudiated a 2021 Church Amendments interpretation and its December 2021 COVID vaccine guidance on January 26, 2026 1011. The VA rescinded its interim final rule on Evaluative Rating, published at 91 FR 7118, and restored the prior text, with Secretary Douglas A. Collins approving the rescission on February 24, 2026 302736. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has only proposed rescinding its nonbank registry rule, and the facts show no final action 2223. The newest fact, dated August 11, 2026, concerns a Bureau of Land Management revocation of a lighthouse-era withdrawal, which is about two months old as of October 2026 and is not clearly a mandate proposal 58.

Checked 2026-10-22. Only documented and supported facts are used.
Dig deeper on this question

Sources

[1] documented
The Bureau of Land Management determined, in consultation with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, that conveying the land out of Federal ownership would not injure the interests of the United States.
"The BLM, in consultation with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, determined that the interests of the United States will not be injured by conveyance of the land out of Federal ownership, without reservation."
Public Land Order No. 7941; Partial Withdrawal Revocation, Power Site Reserve No. 244; Colorado (Interior Department, Land Management Bureau, 2024-05-10)
[2] documented
The specific lands affected by the revocation are located in T. 4 S., R. 86 W., Sec. 9, lots 18 and 28, comprising 7.55 acres.
"T. 4 S., R. 86 W., Sec. 9, lots 18 and 28. The area described contains 7.55 acres."
Public Land Order No. 7941; Partial Withdrawal Revocation, Power Site Reserve No. 244; Colorado (Interior Department, Land Management Bureau, 2024-05-10)
[3] documented
The provisions of section 24 of the Federal Power Act no longer apply to the lands described in the order.
"The provisions of section 24 of the Federal Power Act no longer apply to the land described in paragraph 1."
Public Land Order No. 7941; Partial Withdrawal Revocation, Power Site Reserve No. 244; Colorado (Interior Department, Land Management Bureau, 2024-05-10)
[4] documented
The lands were opened to sale under section 203 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 at 9 a.m. on May 10, 2024.
"At 9 a.m. on May 10, 2024, the lands described in Paragraph 1 are opened to sale under section 203 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended (43 U.S.C. 1713), subject to valid existing rights, the provisions of existing withdrawals, other segregations of record, and the requirements of applicable law."
Public Land Order No. 7941; Partial Withdrawal Revocation, Power Site Reserve No. 244; Colorado (Interior Department, Land Management Bureau, 2024-05-10)
[5] documented
Public Land Order No. 7969 formally revoked a land withdrawal originally created by an Executive Order dated November 22, 1875.
"This order revokes a withdrawal created by an Executive Order dated November 22, 1875, which reserved land at the mouth of the Calcasieu River in Louisiana for lighthouse purposes."
Public Land Order No. 7969; Withdrawal Revocation Calcasieu Radio Beacon Station, Calcasieu, Cameron Parish, Louisiana (Interior Department, Land Management Bureau, 2026-08-11)
[6] documented
The revoked withdrawal covered approximately 2.97 acres of land that had been managed for lighthouse purposes since 1875.
"The approximately 2.97-acres identified for return to the public domain has been managed for lighthouse purposes since 1875."
Public Land Order No. 7969; Withdrawal Revocation Calcasieu Radio Beacon Station, Calcasieu, Cameron Parish, Louisiana (Interior Department, Land Management Bureau, 2026-08-11)
[7] documented
The Bureau of Land Management determined the land was suitable for return to the public domain after evaluation.
"The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has evaluated the land and determined it is suitable for return to the public domain."
Public Land Order No. 7969; Withdrawal Revocation Calcasieu Radio Beacon Station, Calcasieu, Cameron Parish, Louisiana (Interior Department, Land Management Bureau, 2026-08-11)
[8] documented
The revocation was signed by Doug Burgum, Secretary of the Interior, under the authority of section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976.
"By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior by section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714, it is ordered as follows: ... Doug Burgum, Secretary of the Interior."
Public Land Order No. 7969; Withdrawal Revocation Calcasieu Radio Beacon Station, Calcasieu, Cameron Parish, Louisiana (Interior Department, Land Management Bureau, 2026-08-11)
[9] documented
The land remains closed to the United States mining laws despite being opened to appropriation under general land laws.
"The land will remain closed to the United States mining laws."
Public Land Order No. 7969; Withdrawal Revocation Calcasieu Radio Beacon Station, Calcasieu, Cameron Parish, Louisiana (Interior Department, Land Management Bureau, 2026-08-11)
[10] documented
The HHS Office for Civil Rights formally repudiated its 2021 legal interpretation regarding the Church Amendments, which had previously concluded that a medical center did not violate the amendments by requiring a professional to assist in an abortion due to Title VII undue hardship exemptions.
"OCR's 2021 letter took a different interpretation of the Church Amendments from that of the 2019 letter by concluding that that the UVMMC did not violate the Church Amendments since those provisions may need to be interpreted in light of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. ... The legal views stated in OCR's 2021 letter no longer represent the views of the Department or this Administration."
Rescission of Office for Civil Rights Documents Under Executive Order 14192 (Health and Human Services Department, 2026-01-26)
[11] documented
OCR repudiated its December 2021 guidance on the equitable administration of COVID vaccines because the underlying Executive Order 13995 was rescinded in January 2025 and the public health emergency for the pandemic is over.
"OCR disavows views contained in the December 2021 guidance regarding the equitable administration of vaccines. This Guidance relies on Executive Order 13995, Ensuring an Equitable Pandemic Response and Recovery, which was rescinded on January 20, 2025, by Executive Order 14148... Therefore, OCR repudiates this guidance effective immediately under Executive Order 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Throug"
Rescission of Office for Civil Rights Documents Under Executive Order 14192 (Health and Human Services Department, 2026-01-26)
[12] documented
The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) formally withdrew two Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRMs) published on November 27, 2020, effective December 31, 2024.
"The Executive Office for Immigration Review (``EOIR'') is withdrawing two of its Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (``NPRMs''): (1) Motions To Reopen and Reconsider; Effect of Departure; Stay of Removal, and (2) Good Cause for a Continuance in Immigration Proceedings, both published on November 27, 2020, and is providing this notice of withdrawal."
Withdrawal of Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (Justice Department, Executive Office for Immigration Review, 2024-12-31)
[13] documented
The withdrawal of the NPRMs regarding motions to reopen and continuances was signed by Attorney General Merrick B. Garland on December 19, 2024.
"Dated: December 19, 2024. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General."
Withdrawal of Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (Justice Department, Executive Office for Immigration Review, 2024-12-31)
[14] documented
The Department of Justice stated that the withdrawal was necessary because further rulemaking action did not align with agency needs, priorities, and objectives.
"The Department is withdrawing these NPRMs because further rulemaking action with respect to these NPRMs does not align with agency needs, priorities, and objectives."
Withdrawal of Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (Justice Department, Executive Office for Immigration Review, 2024-12-31)
[15] documented
The NPRM titled 'Motions To Reopen and Reconsider; Effect of Departure; Stay of Removal' (RIN 1125-AB01) proposed amendments to regulations governing the 'departure bar' and discretionary stays of removal.
"The NPRM titled ``Motions To Reopen and Reconsider; Effect of Departure; Stay of Removal'' proposed to amend EOIR's regulations at 8 CFR parts 1001 and 1003 governing the filing and adjudication of motions to reopen and reconsider--including those motions following a noncitizen's departure from the United States, commonly known as the ``departure bar''--and to add regulations governing requests fo"
Withdrawal of Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (Justice Department, Executive Office for Immigration Review, 2024-12-31)
[16] documented
The NPRM titled 'Good Cause for a Continuance in Immigration Proceedings' (RIN 1125-AB03) proposed to define 'good cause' in the context of continuances, adjournments, and postponements.
"The NPRM titled ``Good Cause for a Continuance in Immigration Proceedings'' proposed to amend EOIR's regulations at 8 CFR parts 1003 and 1240 to define ``good cause'' in the context of continuances, adjournments, and postponements of immigration proceedings."
Withdrawal of Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (Justice Department, Executive Office for Immigration Review, 2024-12-31)
[17] documented
The Department of Transportation formally withdrew the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on Airline Passenger Rights that was originally issued on December 11, 2024.
"The Department is withdrawing the ANPRM on Airline Passenger Rights issued on December 11, 2024."
Airline Passenger Rights; Withdrawal (Transportation Department, 2025-11-17)
[18] documented
The withdrawal of the ANPRM was justified as consistent with Executive Order 14192, which directs federal agencies to reduce regulatory burdens.
"The withdrawal of this ANPRM is consistent with Executive Order (E.O.) 14192, ``Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,'' which directs Federal agencies to reduce regulatory burdens"
Airline Passenger Rights; Withdrawal (Transportation Department, 2025-11-17)
[19] documented
The withdrawal was also aligned with Executive Order 14219, which directs agencies to identify and repeal or modify regulations deemed unlawful or unauthorized.
"and E.O. 14219, ``Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementation of the President's `Department of Government Efficiency' Deregulatory Agenda,'' which directs Federal agencies to identify and to repeal or to modify regulations that are unlawful or unauthorized."
Airline Passenger Rights; Withdrawal (Transportation Department, 2025-11-17)
[20] documented
The Department concluded that allowing airlines to compete on services and compensation is consistent with the statute, rather than imposing new minimum regulatory requirements that would impose significant costs.
"The Department concludes that it is consistent with this statute to continue to allow airlines to compete on the services and compensation that they provide to passengers rather than imposing new minimum requirements for these services and compensation through regulation, which would impose significant costs on airlines, and potentially consumers."
Airline Passenger Rights; Withdrawal (Transportation Department, 2025-11-17)
[21] documented
The 10 largest U.S. passenger air carriers, which account for over 97% of domestic scheduled passenger enplanements, maintain voluntary commitments to assist passengers affected by controllable cancellations and delays.
"At this time, the 10 largest U.S. passenger air carriers, whose networks account for more than 97 percent of domestic scheduled passenger enplanements, maintain voluntary commitments in their customer service plans required by 14 CFR 259.5 to assist passengers affected by cancellations and significant delays that are controllable by the carrier."
Airline Passenger Rights; Withdrawal (Transportation Department, 2025-11-17)
[22] documented
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is proposing to rescind the 'Registry of Nonbank Covered Persons Subject to Certain Agency and Court Orders' rule (NBR Rule) that was adopted on July 8, 2024.
"the Bureau is proposing to rescind the rule and regulations adopted on July 8, 2024, via 89 FR 56028, Registry of Nonbank Covered Persons Subject to Certain Agency and Court Orders, and codified in 12 CFR part 1092 (the ``NBR Rule'')."
Registry of Nonbank Covered Persons Subject to Certain Agency and Court Orders; Proposed Rescission (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 2025-05-14)
[23] documented
The Bureau justifies the proposed rescission by arguing that the costs imposed on regulated entities are not justified by the speculative and unquantified benefits to consumers.
"The Bureau is proposing to rescind the NBR Rule based upon concern that the costs the rule imposes on regulated entities, and which may in large part be passed onto consumers, are not justified by the speculative and unquantified benefits to consumers discussed in the analysis proffered in the NBR Rule."
Registry of Nonbank Covered Persons Subject to Certain Agency and Court Orders; Proposed Rescission (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 2025-05-14)
[24] documented
As of April 15, 2025, approximately 212 unique entities had already registered orders under the NBR Rule before the proposed rescission.
"as of April 15, 2025, approximately 212 unique entities have already registered orders under the NBR Rule (including entities that utilized the one-time registration option provided for in 12 CFR 1092.203)."
Registry of Nonbank Covered Persons Subject to Certain Agency and Court Orders; Proposed Rescission (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 2025-05-14)
[25] documented
The Bureau proposes that the rescission rule be effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register, citing 'good cause' and the relief of restrictions as exceptions to the standard 30-day waiting period.
"The Bureau believes that, because this rule would rescind all information submission requirements under the NBR Rule, regulated entities would benefit from the rescission becoming effective immediately upon publication of a final rule and doing so would not be disruptive to their business operations."
Registry of Nonbank Covered Persons Subject to Certain Agency and Court Orders; Proposed Rescission (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 2025-05-14)
[26] documented
The Bureau states that the rescission would not fully restore the pre-rule baseline because some fixed compliance costs have already been expended and are unrecoverable.
"However, even if finalized, the rescission of the NBR Rule will not fully restore the baseline that would capture the NBR Rule's impacts. For example, some of the fixed costs of compliance discussed in the ``Dodd-Frank Act Section 1022(b)(2) Analysis'' section of the NBR Rule \4\ have already been expended.\5\ As such they are, perhaps to varying extents depending on each covered person's circumst"
Registry of Nonbank Covered Persons Subject to Certain Agency and Court Orders; Proposed Rescission (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 2025-05-14)
[27] supported
The VA rescinded its interim final rule, Evaluative Rating: Impact of Medication, and restored the prior regulatory text, effective immediately.
"advises that the interim final rule is rescinded effective immediately."
Rescission of Interim Final Rule, Evaluative Rating: Impact of Medication (Veterans Affairs Department, 2026-02-27)
[28] documented
OSM's direct final rule removes paragraphs requiring that all surface drainage from disturbed areas pass through a siltation structure before leaving the permit area.
"The direct final rule removes paragraphs that required that all surface drainage from the disturbed area pass through a siltation structure before leaving the permit area."
Rescission of Portions of Permanent Program Performance Standards Related to Siltation Structures (Interior Department, Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office, 2026-01-27)
[29] supported
The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement's 2025 direct final rule lifts the suspension of the subsidence provision and removes paragraphs that set up a rebuttable presumption of causation for damage near underground mines.
"The direct final rule lifts the suspension of the regulatory provision and revises the Federal regulations to remove paragraphs related to establishing a rebuttable presumption of causation"
Rescission of Portions of Permanent Program Performance Standards Regulating Subsidence Controls for Underground Mines (Interior Department, Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office, 2026-01-27)
[30] documented
The interim final rule being rescinded had been published in the Federal Register on February 17, 2026, at 91 FR 7118.
"published in the Federal Register on February 17, 2026. 91 FR 7118."
Rescission of Interim Final Rule, Evaluative Rating: Impact of Medication (Veterans Affairs Department, 2026-02-27)
[31] documented
The siltation structure provisions were struck down by a reviewing court in 1985, have no legal effect, and were never removed from the Code of Federal Regulations.
"These provisions were struck down by a reviewing court in 1985 and have no legal effect but were never removed from the Code of Federal Regulations."
Rescission of Portions of Permanent Program Performance Standards Related to Siltation Structures (Interior Department, Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office, 2026-01-27)
[32] documented
After a 1999 court ruling, OSMRE suspended the rebuttable presumption provisions on December 22, 1999, but left the language in the Code of Federal Regulations.
"In response to the court's holding, OSMRE suspended these provisions on December 22, 1999, but did not remove the language from the Code of Federal Regulations."
Rescission of Portions of Permanent Program Performance Standards Regulating Subsidence Controls for Underground Mines (Interior Department, Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office, 2026-01-27)
[33] supported
VA used the good cause exception to skip prior notice and comment for the rescission, arguing that leaving the rule in place during a lengthy rulemaking process could undermine confidence in the benefits system.
"finds that prior notice and comment for this rescission is"
Rescission of Interim Final Rule, Evaluative Rating: Impact of Medication (Veterans Affairs Department, 2026-02-27)
[34] supported
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia remanded the provisions to OSM on July 15, 1985, finding OSM's rationale flawed, and OSM later suspended them.
"for the District of Columbia remanded these provisions to OSM on July 15, 1985, because the court found OSM's rationale for these provisions flawed, and OSM later suspended them."
Rescission of Portions of Permanent Program Performance Standards Related to Siltation Structures (Interior Department, Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office, 2026-01-27)
[35] documented
The agency specifically rescinded paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (c)(4)(iv) of 30 CFR 817.121 because a court had vacated them in 1999.
"paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (c)(4)(iv) of 30 CFR 817.121 should be rescinded because they were vacated by court order in 1999"
Rescission of Portions of Permanent Program Performance Standards Regulating Subsidence Controls for Underground Mines (Interior Department, Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office, 2026-01-27)
[36] supported
Secretary of Veterans Affairs Douglas A. Collins approved the rescission document on February 24, 2026, before it was published.
"Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, approved this"
Rescission of Interim Final Rule, Evaluative Rating: Impact of Medication (Veterans Affairs Department, 2026-02-27)
[37] supported
OSM confirmed that the direct final rule became effective on January 27, 2026, after publication on November 28, 2025, and did not withdraw it despite one substantive comment.
"is confirming the effective date of January 27, 2026, for the direct final rule"
Rescission of Portions of Permanent Program Performance Standards Related to Siltation Structures (Interior Department, Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office, 2026-01-27)
[38] documented
The January 2026 notice formally confirmed January 27, 2026 as the effective date of the November 28, 2025 direct final rule, which was published at 90 FR 54577.
"The effective date of the rule published November 28, 2025, at 90 FR 54577 is confirmed as January 27, 2026."
Rescission of Portions of Permanent Program Performance Standards Regulating Subsidence Controls for Underground Mines (Interior Department, Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office, 2026-01-27)
[39] documented
The rescission does not resolve the legal questions pending before the courts; it only restores prior regulatory text to maintain stability.
"This action does not resolve the legal questions now before the courts; it simply restores prior regulatory text to maintain stability."
Rescission of Interim Final Rule, Evaluative Rating: Impact of Medication (Veterans Affairs Department, 2026-02-27)
[40] documented
The provisions were struck down on judicial review because OSM failed to adequately support its presumption that damage resulted from mining within the angle of draw, citing Nat'l Mining Ass'n v. Babbitt.
"Over 25 years ago, the provisions identified in the direct final rule were struck down on judicial review because the court found that OSM failed to provide adequate support to justify its presumption that damage was the result of mining within the angle of draw."
Rescission of Portions of Permanent Program Performance Standards Regulating Subsidence Controls for Underground Mines (Interior Department, Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office, 2026-01-27)