Trump curbs prosecutions over regulatory violations lacking criminal intent

In a sweeping move that received little mainstream coverage, President Donald Trump signed a presidential order that could significantly reshape how the federal government enforces its regulatory code.

According to Blaze Media, the executive action, issued on a Friday, limits prosecutions over regulatory violations to cases involving clear criminal intent and calls for greater transparency from federal agencies regarding which rules carry criminal consequences.

Entitled “Fighting Overcriminalization in Federal Regulations,” the order marks a notable shift in how federal laws tied to regulations may be interpreted and enforced. It instructs all executive agencies to compile and publish, within 365 days, a comprehensive list of current regulations that carry criminal penalties.

The executive action centers on the issue of intent — a legal concept that distinguishes between individuals who knowingly break the law and those who do so unintentionally. Under the order, the federal government is discouraged from seeking criminal charges in situations lacking evidence of willful or malicious behavior.

Revisiting Intent in Federal Enforcement

Much of the directive’s rationale stems from concerns that the vast federal code has become too convoluted for ordinary citizens to navigate. The Code of Federal Regulations currently spans more than 175,000 pages and includes over 48,000 distinct sections, many of which contain criminal liabilities that are not well-known or easily understood.

In the order itself, the administration characterizes the regulatory state as “drastically overregulated.” The document notes that the existing scale and complexity of the federal code make it unfeasible for citizens to fully grasp which actions may expose them to legal consequences.

Attorney Laura Powell, representing Californians for Good Governance, voiced strong support for the measure, citing the “countless” nature of criminal offenses buried in the federal regulatory structure. Powell argued that failing to clarify these laws undermines due process, as citizens cannot comply with rules they do not even know exist.

Supporters Argue for Rule of Law

"This lack of clarity violates the due process requirement of fair notice," Powell said, explaining that people should not face incarceration for actions they unknowingly took in violation of obscure rules. She further criticized strict liability offenses, which can lead to convictions even if no intent to break the law is proven.

Powell noted the expansion of what she referred to as an “unaccountable fourth branch,” in which administrative agencies operate beyond congressional oversight. “Many offenses are strict liability, meaning you can be convicted even if you were unaware your actions were illegal,” she said.

Despite the complexity and legal implications of the order, few major media outlets gave the executive action prominent attention. Yet to some legal experts and policy advocates, the order represents a significant development in how the balance of power is maintained between citizens and government enforcement bodies.

Libertarian and Foundational Views Align

Steven Nekhaila, chair of the Libertarian Party, described the executive order as a positive development aimed at reinforcing individual liberties. “This is a commendable step toward restoring individual freedoms and curbing governmental overreach,” he said.

However, Nekhaila also cautioned against viewing the action as a final solution. “This executive action should be the beginning, not the end, of efforts to dismantle the labyrinth of federal regulations that infringe upon personal freedoms,” he said.

He added that further steps are needed to ensure regulations align with the foundational role laws should play — to protect rights, rather than trap unsuspecting people in violations they didn’t intend to commit. “We urge continued vigilance and action to ensure that laws serve to protect rights rather than punish inadvertent noncompliance,” he said.

Historical Concern Over Complex Laws

Trump’s order drew reference to historical warnings about overly complex legal codes. The Heritage Foundation cited James Madison, who once argued that laws too voluminous or unclear hinder democratic governance even if written by elected representatives.

“It will be of little avail to the people that laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood,” Madison wrote — a quote that has resurfaced in recent debates about federal overregulation.

The Heritage Foundation and other groups say these concerns are not merely academic, but directly influence how people live, work, and conduct business under the threat of little-known statutes with criminal repercussions.

Agencies Now on the Clock

The practical implications of the executive order hinge on how quickly and thoroughly federal agencies comply with its mandates. Creating an accurate public list of rules that carry criminal penalties is expected to be a massive undertaking, considering the code’s size and inconsistent recordkeeping.

Nonetheless, the requirement may shed light on a long-overlooked area of regulatory enforcement. If fulfilled as intended, the list could become a tool for reform and transparency, giving the public a clearer view of the laws that may result in incarceration.

Policy watchers will observe how the Biden administration and subsequent presidents respond to or revise this order. While executive actions can carry weight, they are also subject to reversal or modification by future administrations.