★
Executive Orders Historical Archive
Cite
Executive Order 12372 🏛️✅ Zone 1: Maximum Authority Constitutional Fidelity (+0.29) 📜 10th Amend: Intergovernmental Federalism Cooperation

Executive Order 12372—Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs

•
Wednesday, July 14, 1982
•
4 min read (815 words)

Executive Brief • At a Glance

⏱️ 4 min read (815 words) • ● In Effect
🎯 Primary Mandate

Federal agencies shall provide opportunities for consultation by elected officials of those State and local governments that would provide the non-Federal funds for, or that would be directly affected by, proposed Federal financial assistance or direct Federal development.

⚖️ Constitutional Footing
🏛️✅ Zone 1: Maximum Authority
Express or Implied Congressional Authorization
📜 10th Amend: Intergovernmental Federalism Cooperation
🏛️ Scope & Affected Sectors
Sovereign State Governments & Localities

Plain-English Translation & Framers' Constitutional Analysis

Early Statesman synthesis distilling legal jargon into practical meaning, statutory anchors, and structural constitutional impacts.

Signed by President Ronald Reagan on July 14, 1982, this order concerns Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs. Federal agencies shall provide opportunities for consultation by elected officials of those State and local governments that would provide the non-Federal funds for, or that would be directly affected by, proposed Federal financial assistance or direct Federal development. Sec. 2.

Constitutional Assessment: Reviewed under the Tenth Amendment and the principle of dual federalism, this order touches upon domains traditionally reserved to the sovereign States. The Framers would caution against any attempt to commandeer state officers or displace local police powers through federal executive fiat.

Key Directives & Operative Actions

▪

Federal agencies shall provide opportunities for consultation by elected officials of those State and local governments that would provide the non-Federal funds for, or that would be directly affected by, proposed Federal financial assistance or direct Federal development.

▪

To the extent the States, in consultation with local general purpose governments, and local special purpose governments they consider appropriate, develop their own processes or refine existing processes for State and local elected officials to review and coordinate proposed Federal financial assistance and direct Federal development, the Federal agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law: (a) Utilize the State process to determine official views of State and local elected officials.

▪

Make efforts to accommodate State and local elected officials' concerns with proposed Federal financial assistance and direct Federal development that are communicated through the designated State process.

▪

For those cases where the concerns cannot be accommodated, Federal officials shall explain the bases for their decision in a timely manner.

Constitutional & Societal Entities Impacted

🏛️ Sovereign State Governments & Localities

Policy Areas & Topics

🏛️

The Framers' Constitutional Council

1787 Prism

Evaluating this order against the constitutional debates of 1787 and the limits of Article II executive power.

🏛️✅ Zone 1 (Maximum Authority)
§

"When the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate."

— Justice Robert H. Jackson, Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952) Express or Implied Congressional Authorization
JM

James Madison

Separation of Powers & Legislative Primacy

"The constitutional magistracy was designed not to invent policy, but to be the faithful instrument of the laws passed by the people's representatives." — Speech in the First Congress (1789)

Madison would approve the structural posture of this order. The President acts strictly in subordination to statutory authority granted under Article II, Section 3 ("take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"). The checks and balances hold firm because the policy origin remains with the legislature.

Madisonian Stance: Concurring (Statutory)
AH

Alexander Hamilton

The Energetic Executive & Unified Command

"A feeble Executive implies a feeble execution of the government; and a government ill executed, whatever it may be in theory, must be, in practice, a bad government." — Federalist No. 70 (1788)

Hamilton would view this directive as the natural and indispensable functioning of administrative leadership. Without the power to coordinate agencies, manage personnel, and resolve operational ambiguities, the modern presidency would be reduced to an impotent figurehead.

Hamiltonian Stance: Supportive of Execution
GM

George Mason

Bill of Rights, Due Process & 10th Amendment

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." — 10th Amendment to the US Constitution (1791)

Mason would scrutinize whether this federal directive intrudes into police powers, land stewardship, or municipal domains historically reserved to local citizens. The Anti-Federalist demand is that federal administration must never supplant state self-governance.

Anti-Federalist Stance: Eternal Vigilance Required
📐

Five Measurable "Constitutional Friction" Dimensions

An objective audit measuring potential separation-of-powers tension against the United States Constitution and established Supreme Court doctrine.

⚖️ Discretionary Twilight Zone
46 / 100 friction index
Dimension 1 • Art. I, §1 & §8

Legislative Encroachment & Purse

Moderate Friction

Administers commerce or fiscal programs requiring ongoing statutory delegation and legislative oversight.

Benchmark: Power of the purse, taxes/tariffs, and rule of law reserved to Congress.
Dimension 2 • Art. II, §1 & §3

Executive Scope & Faithfulness

Moderate Friction

Directs internal executive branch machinery, agency workflows, and federal personnel.

Benchmark: Faithfully execute laws enacted by Congress vs. unilateral decree.
Dimension 3 • 10th Amendment

Federalism & State Sovereignty

High Friction

Creates friction with the Tenth Amendment by conditioning state grants, mandating local compliance, or preempting state police powers.

Benchmark: Police powers and un-delegated responsibilities reserved to the States.
Dimension 4 • 5th & 14th Amendments

Due Process & Individual Rights

Moderate Friction

Applies regulatory or compliance standards to private contractors or commercial entities.

Benchmark: Protection of private property, contracts, liberty, and procedural justice.
Dimension 5 • Separation of Powers

Youngstown Jacksonian Tier

Low Friction

The President operates strictly as the constitutional Chief Executive, carrying out policy established by Congress with strong statutory backing.

Benchmark: Express or Implied Congressional Authorization
⚖️ Audit Synthesis

This order operates within Justice Jackson’s Zone of Twilight, resting upon concurrent presidential authority or congressional silence.

Weighted composite: Art. I (25%), Art. II (25%), Federalism (15%), Due Process (15%), Youngstown (20%).
ℹ️
How to read these dimensions: Executive power expands whenever an administration acts without explicit statutory authorization from Congress (Article I), touches upon police powers historically reserved to the states (Tenth Amendment), or limits private rights and property without judicial process. A low friction score indicates strict concordance with enacted law; a high friction score highlights orders testing the limits of presidential discretion.
Total Words
815
5,340 characters
Estimated Read Time
4 min
@ 200 words / min
Flesch-Kincaid
16.9
Post-Graduate Legal
Language Tone Score
+0.29
Constitutional Fidelity
How is this scored?
Text size:

Official Archival Text

View Source Document
📑Sections Outline (8 sections)

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, including Section 401(a) of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4231(a)) and Section 301 of Title 3 of the United States Code, and in order to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism by relying on State and local processes for the State and local government coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance and direct Federal development, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. #sec-1

Federal agencies shall provide opportunities for consultation by elected officials of those State and local governments that would provide the non-Federal funds for, or that would be directly affected by, proposed Federal financial assistance or direct Federal development.

Sec. 2. #sec-2

To the extent the States, in consultation with local general purpose governments, and local special purpose governments they consider appropriate, develop their own processes or refine existing processes for State and local elected officials to review and coordinate proposed Federal financial assistance and direct Federal development, the Federal agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law: (a) Utilize the State process to determine official views of State and local elected officials. (b) Communicate with State and local elected officials as early in the program planning cycle as is reasonably feasible to explain specific plans and actions. (c) Make efforts to accommodate State and local elected officials' concerns with proposed Federal financial assistance and direct Federal development that are communicated through the designated State process. For those cases where the concerns cannot be accommodated, Federal officials shall explain the bases for their decision in a timely manner. (d) Allow the States to simplify and consolidate existing Federally required State plan submissions. Where State planning and budgeting systems are sufficient and where permitted by law, the substitution of State plans for Federally required State plans shall be encouraged by the agencies. (e) Seek the coordination of views of affected State and local elected officials in one State with those of another State when proposed Federal financial assistance or direct Federal development has an impact on interstate metropolitan urban centers or other interstate areas. Existing interstate mechanisms that are redesignated as part of the State process may be used for this purpose. (f) Support State and local governments by discouraging the reauthorization or creation of any planning organization which is Federally-funded, which has a Federally-prescribed membership, which is established for a limited purpose, and which is not adequately representative of, or accountable to, State or local elected officials.

Sec. 3. #sec-3

(a) The State process referred to in Section 2 shall include those where States delegate, in specific instances, to local elected officials the review, coordination, and communication with Federal agencies. (b) At the discretion of the State and local elected officials, the State process may exclude certain Federal programs from review and comment.

Sec. 4. #sec-4

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) shall maintain a list of official State entities designated by the States to review and coordinate proposed Federal financial assistance and direct Federal development. The Office of Management and Budget shall disseminate such lists to the Federal agencies.

Sec. 5. #sec-5

(a) Agencies shall propose rules and regulations governing the formulation, evaluation, and review of proposed Federal financial assistance and direct Federal development pursuant to this Order, to be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for approval. (b) The rules and regulations which result from the process indicated in Section 5(a) above shall replace any current rules and regulations and become effective April 30, 1983.

Sec. 6. #sec-6

The Director of the Office of Management and Budget is authorized to prescribe such rules and regulations, if any, as he deems appropriate for the effective implementation and administration of this Order and the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968. The Director is also authorized to exercise the authority vested in the President by Section 401(a) of that Act (42 U.S.C. 4231(a)), in a manner consistent with this Order.

Sec. 7. #sec-7

The Memorandum of November 8, 1968, is terminated (33 Fed. Reg. 16487, November 13, 1968). The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall revoke OMB Circular A-95, which was issued pursuant to that Memorandum. However, Federal agencies shall continue to comply with the rules and regulations issued pursuant to that Memorandum, including those issued by the Office of Management and Budget, until new rules and regulations have been issued in accord with this Order.

Sec. 8. #sec-8

The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall report to the President within two years on Federal agency compliance with this Order. The views of State and local elected officials on their experiences with these policies, along with any suggestions for improvement, will be included in the Director's report. RONALD REAGAN The White House, July 14, 1982. [Filed with the Office of the Federal Register, 3:18 p.m., July 14, 1982]

🔗

Referenced By Later Executive Orders (3)

Subsequent presidents who cited, amended, continued, or revoked this directive in later orders.

William J. Clinton • 1999-08-04
Ronald Reagan • 1987-10-26
📜

Scholarly & Legal Citations

Exec. Order No. 12,372 (July 14, 1982), https://executiveordersarchive.org/orders/app-executive-order-12372-intergovernmental-review-federal-programs.