Editor’s note: This is one installment in a One Small Step series exploring how our founding principles apply to policy change movements. See the series introduction and full collection here.
“An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one which should not only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced… as that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.” – Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia
Perhaps no principle was considered more vital to both the founding and lasting success of our Nation almost 250 years ago than the need for separation of powers. James Madison famously stated in Federalist No. 47 that “[t]he accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, & judiciary, in the same hands … may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” Indeed, Madison made it clear that a failure to adequately separate the federal branches in the Constitution would effectively condemn the entire U.S. experiment from the start:
Were the federal Constitution, therefore, really chargeable with the accumulation of power, or with a mixture of powers, having a dangerous tendency to such an accumulation, no further arguments would be necessary to inspire a universal reprobation of the system.
It is of course not surprising that the first three Articles of the U.S. Constitution carefully and clearly set forth the limited powers of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches.
Yet, as we approach the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence and the collective decision to walk away from tyranny, few would be mocked for questioning whether our three branches of government truly remain separate and balanced. Beginning in earnest during the New Deal, the continuous and rapid growth of the administrative state blurs the lines between the three branches. These regulatory agencies, led by unelected bureaucrats, essentially operate as lawmakers, judges, and law enforcement simultaneously, with little pushback from Congress and, until recently, the courts.
There is no question that Congress has abdicated its lawmaking responsibilities. While Congress might pass a few meaningful laws annually, federal agencies issue thousands of regulations, meaning the vast majority of legally binding requirements stem from regulatory bodies, not direct legislative action. Similarly, for decades federal courts abdicated their responsibilities under the Chevron doctrine, where courts essentially deferred to agencies’ interpretations of the law rather than what the law actually said. To the judiciary’s credit, they finally reclaimed their constitutionally delegated powers in 2024 when the Supreme Court overturned the Chevron doctrine and reestablished that courts, not agencies, interpret the law.
Unfortunately, Congress has failed to do the same. In fact, not only has Congress failed to pass any truly meaningful laws to rein in the administrative state and reclaim their role as sole legislatures under Article 1 of the Constitution, but the reality is also that few policy issues get less traction in Congress than regulatory reform. Given the difficulty in moving legislation to address regulatory overreach, it is perhaps no wonder that Members of Congress seem less and less interested in coming up with innovative ideas to reestablish the constitutional tripartite government. Why spend the time coming up with innovative policy solutions to regulatory reform when Congress is unable to even pass a law simply asking federal agencies to post their guidance documents online?
Innovation in the States
Yet, while Congress sits idly by, in recent years, Virginia has quietly built one of the most effective regulatory systems in the country. At the center of this transformation is the Commonwealth’s Office of Regulatory Management (ORM)—a small but powerful institution that has delivered measurable economic benefits, improved transparency, and strengthened trust in government. As policymakers at both the federal and state level look ahead, the case for continuing—and even strengthening—ORM is overwhelming.
The most compelling argument for ORM is simple: it works. In just a few years, Virginia’s regulatory reform initiative has eliminated or streamlined more than 88,000 regulatory requirements and cut millions of words from guidance documents. These changes are not merely cosmetic—they have generated over $1.2 billion in annual savings for Virginians.
Importantly, these gains have not come at the expense of public health or safety. Instead, ORM has focused on identifying outdated, redundant, or unnecessarily burdensome rules while preserving core protections. The result is a regulatory system that is both leaner and more effective.
The key to the success of this model is its government-wide approach and willingness to embrace emerging technologies, most notably AI. One of ORM’s most innovative contributions is its insistence on universal economic analysis. Unlike the federal government, which typically requires detailed cost-benefit analysis only for major rules, Virginia applies this discipline to all regulatory actions.
This approach ensures that regulators explicitly consider tradeoffs before imposing new requirements. Agencies must identify the problem they are trying to solve, evaluate alternatives, and weigh costs against benefits. The result is not deregulation for its own sake, but smarter regulation—rules that achieve their goals at the lowest possible cost to citizens, businesses, and local governments.
Further, shortly after reaching the initial target of a 25% regulatory reduction, Governor Youngkin’s Administration decided to further maximize these efforts by integrating AI into the cost-benefit analysis process to further streamline regulations. Specifically, Virginia’s ORM used AI to find regulations with high costs and low benefits, to compare Virginia regulations to similar regulations in other states, to remove duplicative regulations by consolidating regulations from different agencies that seek to address similar problems, and to streamline and make more accessible to the public the text of regulatory and guidance documents.
ORM has also transformed how Virginians interact with their government. By requiring that all regulations and guidance documents be publicly available—and paired with clear economic analysis—the office has made the regulatory process more accessible and understandable.
This matters. Public trust in institutions depends on transparency and accountability. When citizens can see how decisions are made and understand their rationale, they are more likely to view those decisions as legitimate. ORM helps restore that connection between government action and public confidence.
Another often-overlooked benefit of ORM is speed. Regulatory and permitting processes that once took months can now be completed in a fraction of the time. In some cases, review periods have dropped from more than 80 days to under 10.
This efficiency has real-world consequences. Faster permitting accelerates construction, reduces costs, and enables businesses to invest and hire more quickly. For example, regulatory streamlining in housing has reduced construction costs significantly, helping make homes more affordable.
Virginia’s success has not gone unnoticed. The “Virginia Model” is increasingly viewed as a blueprint for other states—and even the federal government—seeking to modernize their regulatory systems. For example, Representative Blake Moore (R-UT) and Senator Jon Husted (R-OH) recently introduced the Leveraging Artificial Intelligence to Streamline the Code of Federal Regulations Act of 2026, which would require the federal government to adopt a system similar to Virginia’s where AI can help identify duplicative, outdated, and overly-expensive regulations at little to no cost to taxpayers.
Unfortunately, the Executive Order that created ORM is only in effect until June 30, 2026, which means this innovative and successful program will end if Governor Spanberger or (preferably) the Virginia General Assembly fail to extend it. Ending or weakening ORM risks reversing these gains. Without a centralized body to oversee regulatory review, states tend to experience “regulatory accumulation”—a gradual buildup of rules that slows economic growth, stifles innovation, and increases costs for households and businesses.
ORM prevents this drift. It provides the structure, accountability, and expertise needed to ensure that regulations remain justified, efficient, and aligned with the public’s interest.
Overall, the Office represents one of the most successful and innovative governance reforms in recent history. It has saved money, improved transparency, accelerated decision-making, and strengthened the quality of regulation across the Commonwealth.
At a time when many Americans are skeptical of government effectiveness, ORM offers a rare example of reform that delivers tangible results. Virginia should not only continue this office, but rather Virginia, Congress, and the entire country should adopt and build on its success and reaffirm the type of accountable governance envisioned by our Founding Fathers.
Graham Owens is a Regulatory Policy Fellow at Americans for Prosperity.
