How vague statutory language enabled the Biden administration’s CHIPS Act overreach, and what Congress must do next

My latest op-ed in the Washington Reporter uses FOIA docs from the CHIPS Act implementation to demonstrate how ambiguous laws empower unelected bureaucrats and undermine democratic accountability:

When Congress rejected sweeping child care subsidies in the Inflation Reduction Act, the Biden administration’s Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo reportedly told her staff, “if Congress wasn’t going to do what they should have done, we’re going to do it in implementation.”

That wasn’t just rhetoric — it became a blueprint for how the Biden administration would abuse a bill meant to support the domestic production of semiconductors, the CHIPS and Science Act, to instead impose progressive social policies through administrative fiat.

After more than two years of government stonewalling in Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation, the Americans for Prosperity Foundation uncovered how the Biden administration’s Department of Commerce made political decisions to burden domestic chip manufacturers with additional requirements and mandates beyond what the statute allowed, undermining the national security argument that was key the bill’s passage.

Raimondo knew they exceeded the statute’s bounds, which is why she preemptively asked her staff to come up with “a short list of issues related to CHIPS where we’ve made decisions that have political ramifications” (emphasis added).

Another email obtained in litigation revealed how Raimondo advisors outlined the various “Administrative requirements” and “Administrative Preferences” that were not included in the “Statutory Requirements.”