In December 2024, the United States Department of Transportation (DOT) proposed a regulation whereby airlines would be required to pay passengers cash compensation in the event that flights are delayed or canceled, just as we see in the European Union and United Kingdom.
Given how late in the Biden administration this was proposed, it couldn’t actually be made law before the leadership change, as there was first a public commenting period, which put us into the Trump administration. Well, we now officially know the fate of this proposed regulation, and it shouldn’t come as much of a surprise.
In this post:
Biden’s proposal for up to $775 flight delay compensation
For some background, in December 2024, the DOT under the Biden administration announced its plan to protect passengers who are stranded by airline disruptions.
This involved airlines being required to pay passengers cash compensation, rebook them for free on the next available flight, and cover meals, overnight lodging, and related transportation expenses, when a disruption is airline caused, such as a mechanical issue or an IT airline system breakdown.
Here’s how former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg described this:
“Americans know the importance of a robust airline industry, which is why this country—and U.S. taxpayers — kept U.S. airlines afloat when the COVID pandemic threatened their very existence. Now that we are on the other side of the pandemic and air travel is breaking records, we must continue to advance passenger protections. This action we’re announcing is another step forward into a better era for commercial air travel—where the flying public is better protected and passengers aren’t expected to bear the cost of disruptions caused by airlines.”
Currently, airline passengers face many challenges in holding airlines to their promises, because there’s no legal obligation for airlines to notify passengers when they are entitled to services promised in the customer service plan, and their policies are generally vague on the details of delivery.
Passengers must also typically request these services at the airport in person, and frontline staff may not know if a flight disruption is caused by the airline, or may not have enough vouchers to provide upfront services to everyone. Airlines generally do not clearly disclose when, what, and how much they will reimburse passengers who pay out of pocket.
So the DOT’s rulemaking was aimed at addressing these gaps, and establishing baseline standards on what airlines are obligated to deliver to stranded passengers during disruptions. This would apply specifically to delays and cancelations that are due (in whole or in part) to any circumstance within the control of the airline.
For one, airlines would need to pay cash compensation to passengers when a trip is disrupted. The DOT considered a tiered approach. For example, for domestic flights, compensation could be $200-300 for delays of three to six hours, $375-525 for delays of six to nine hours, and $750-775 for delays of nine or more hours.
The DOT was also considering whether smaller airlines should pay less than larger airlines, and whether or not compensation should be required if a passenger is notified a week or two in advance of a cancelation or significant delay.
The DOT was also planning on requiring airlines to provide meals, overnight lodging, and transportation to and from the airport, for stranded passengers, and defining very clearly what would need to be included as part of each service.
This could also include requiring airlines to automatically pay a minimum reimbursement for each service an affected passenger is entitled to receive when airlines do not provide these services upfront, and passengers do not submit receipts for costs, up to a maximum reimbursement threshold per service.
Lastly, the DOT was considering requiring airlines to rebook passengers on the next available flight on any carrier that the airline has a commercial agreement with, in the event of delays or cancelations.
The Trump administration is dropping this proposal
In January 2025, we transitioned from the Biden administration to the Trump administration, and that also meant major changes at the DOT, as Sean Duffy took over as Transportation Secretary. Not surprisingly, the DOT under Duffy has now confirmed that it’s not moving forward with this proposed new regulation. Airline executives were vehemently opposed to this, and I guess they won out over consumers.
So at least under the current administration, cash compensation for delayed flights is off the table. I don’t think that’s a surprise. But keep in mind that this would’ve gone way beyond that, even covering things as basic as requiring airlines to rebook you on another airline if there’s a meltdown.
If anything, I just hope we don’t see existing regulations cut. We know that US airlines are lobbying to cut consumer protections, and are requesting to increasingly self-police, to “unleash American prosperity and the new ‘golden age’ of air travel in America.” Nothing says “golden age of air travel” quite like being stranded in Atlanta for a week the next time a carrier’s operation falls apart!
My take on stronger protections for consumers
As you’d expect, airline executives universally came out against this, arguing that this would raise the cost of flights, and be bad for the traveling public. I strongly disagree with that, and airlines in the US have gone far too long with minimal obligations to their customers, and a completely one-sided contract of carriage.
Just look at aviation in Europe, where similar regulations are in place. Can anyone point to how airfare has increased as a result of these obligations? Quite to the contrary, a bunch of ultra low cost carriers operate there quite successfully, and have very low ticket prices.
Studies have even shown that these regulations have caused a decrease in avoidable delays, both in terms of the number of delays, and the length of each delay. Part of the hope is that airlines would put more effort into minimizing disruptions, which could come in the form of not having an overly aggressive flight schedule, leading to situations where there aren’t enough staff and aircraft to operate flights.
Currently airlines have a strong incentive to create best case scenario schedules, and not plan for worst case scenario outcomes. After all, their obligations to passengers when things go wrong are minimal. They want to get as much revenue as they can upfront, with limited downside to them.
Furthermore, this would encourage airlines to negotiate proper contracts with employees. For example, remember several years back when American mechanics were (unofficially) delaying flights while contract negotiations were ongoing? Stuff like that would suddenly become much more costly for airlines.
Even beyond the cash compensation, I’m a huge fan of the concept of airlines having to rebook customers on other airlines in the case of substantial delays. It’s ridiculous how right now if you’re on a flight that’s canceled last minute due to something within a carrier’s control, they may very well tell you that their next available flight is in a couple of days, and your options are to either accept that, or to take a refund.
Like any of these schemes, the one challenge would’ve been holding airlines accountable as to what’s a controllable delay and what isn’t. Airlines love to blame weather and air traffic control for just about everything. Obviously a key part of any legislation is how consumers would be able to determine what the cause of a delay is.
Bottom line
The DOT under the Biden administration had proposed new regulations that would hold airlines accountable for delays within their control. In the event of significant disruptions, this would have included cash compensation, the requirement to book travelers on other airlines, and clear guidelines on reimbursement for expenses that are incurred.
As you’d expect, airline executives were strongly opposed to this. With the Trump administration now in office, we’ve learned that these regulations won’t be moving forward.
I’m sad we won’t see these regulations go into effect. The value in regulations like these isn’t just the compensation as such, but instead, the incentive it gives airlines to operate reliably and not cut corners. Airline contracts of carriage are really one-sided, and this would’ve been beneficial for consumers.
What do you make of this proposed rulemaking being shot down?
The regulations in the EU have NOT been shown to improve delay performance. Airlines have every incentive to operate on time - no regulation is needed for that.
If i get at least 250 EUR whenever i'm late instead of nothing i'll prefer the regulations
hear hear
In fact, the 3 best performing airlines on a financial basis - DL, AS and UA - also run pretty good operations. DL, as the best performing financially, also runs the best operation considering all factors.
Yeah, no July you‘re wrong.
are we great yet?
To me this seems political on the Biden admin's part. The only reason I can think of that they would wait until December 2024, when they obviously knew who'd be succeeding them, to propose this, is so that they can have the optics of the Trump admin rejecting it.
"It's political when it makes Bronzer Benito look bad!"
It's political when its sole purpose is not to enact policy (which if they really wanted - had enough time to do) but to make the the other politician look a certain way.
Except that Trump did not HAVE to cancel this regulation. It would not have hurt our airlines, many of whom were making record profits post-COVID. He did this because airlines lobbied him to do so. You're arguing this like Trump is a force of nature, with no agency of his own, and anything bad he does is obviously the fault of the prior admin. That's DUMB.
Trump and his cabinet had a choice. They...
Except that Trump did not HAVE to cancel this regulation. It would not have hurt our airlines, many of whom were making record profits post-COVID. He did this because airlines lobbied him to do so. You're arguing this like Trump is a force of nature, with no agency of his own, and anything bad he does is obviously the fault of the prior admin. That's DUMB.
Trump and his cabinet had a choice. They could have kept consumer-friendly regulation in place. They CHOSE, using their own free will, to cancel it. Just like they CHOSE to gut the CFPB, which has protected Americans from fraudulent and dishonest financial practices for decades.
Trump and his admin is anti-consumer. They don't CARE about you or me. They care about lining their pockets with tribute from the businesses they regulate. That's not on Biden.
I'm not arguing with that. Of course Trump had a choice and indeed this is what chose to do.
All I'm saying is that this feels purely political on Biden's end. They could have introduced this at the start of his term so that they had enough time to get it through, but apparently it wasn't important enough for them. Instead, they chose to score political points by introducing it last minute knowing that Trump would cancel it.
>Instead, they chose to score political points by introducing it last minute knowing that Trump would cancel it.
There you go again. Why does Trump not have agency in your mind? Why are you blaming Biden of all people for not implementing it *checks notes* when air travel was at rock bottom in the middle of a global pandemic and airlines were on life support?
And food for thought, if Biden had introduced it earlier,...
>Instead, they chose to score political points by introducing it last minute knowing that Trump would cancel it.
There you go again. Why does Trump not have agency in your mind? Why are you blaming Biden of all people for not implementing it *checks notes* when air travel was at rock bottom in the middle of a global pandemic and airlines were on life support?
And food for thought, if Biden had introduced it earlier, Republicans, airlines, and even public opinion would have been against it because the airlines were in a bad situation from the pandemic. With this SCOTUS, it absolutely would have gotten overturned before the end of Biden's term despite the airlines having a much improved situation (record profits going into 2025) at the tail end. It's not "scoring political points" to let Trump make his own decision. It's showing voters that they voted for a man who only cares about lining his pockets at their expense.
100% agree to this . . .
"airlines in the US have gone far too long with minimal obligations to their customers, and a completely one-sided contract of carriage"
BUT it seems, if you only see black or white in 1 Country, it's hard to see things realistically.
That's why things go the way they do.
In the 80's there was a big movement called "ACT UP", it seems today, everybody is...
100% agree to this . . .
"airlines in the US have gone far too long with minimal obligations to their customers, and a completely one-sided contract of carriage"
BUT it seems, if you only see black or white in 1 Country, it's hard to see things realistically.
That's why things go the way they do.
In the 80's there was a big movement called "ACT UP", it seems today, everybody is happy with the consumer unfriendly politics in the country now, another backdrop to a country being so proud to be the USA, but we all understand once again why, it seems that there will always be 1 winner only, . . . and it hardly ever is the paying client! :-o
First and foremost most delays are connected to weather or ATC delays and would not be eligible. Even if an airline sucks at operational recovery the airline can still point to weather or an ATC delay. Delaying and cancelling flights is expensive for the airline. Airplanes break and with load factors of around 90% there's only so many seats to put butts in. Now we can go back to the 1960s CAB days and all...
First and foremost most delays are connected to weather or ATC delays and would not be eligible. Even if an airline sucks at operational recovery the airline can still point to weather or an ATC delay. Delaying and cancelling flights is expensive for the airline. Airplanes break and with load factors of around 90% there's only so many seats to put butts in. Now we can go back to the 1960s CAB days and all of this will be over. Put do you think you would have the same fare structure?
The $775 does not improve safety. Perhaps the opposite.
I like how they reference a "new golden age" when the original time period commonly accepted as the "golden age" was when airlines were so regulated that their fares and routes were under CAB control.
The previous DOT showed a poor understanding of airline operations in many of its efforts (EX: the provision in the auto refunds proposal about a flight number change) , but there should be a minimum baseline that airlines should be held to in terms of compensation.
When they used the " new golden age " it was probably to reference " the new golden showers " of travel.
$775 on a delayed flight that might be a $159 fare?
All the Biden plan would accomplish is having airlines further pad their schedules, and drive up prices across the board. So we will all pay much more per flight - and both the passenger and industry will suffer. The 30 or so government employees that track (under the Biden administration plan) this compliance would benefit. So Trump eliminated those jobs, the FAA fees and...
$775 on a delayed flight that might be a $159 fare?
All the Biden plan would accomplish is having airlines further pad their schedules, and drive up prices across the board. So we will all pay much more per flight - and both the passenger and industry will suffer. The 30 or so government employees that track (under the Biden administration plan) this compliance would benefit. So Trump eliminated those jobs, the FAA fees and lets them compete against each other.
If an airlines is always late or canceling, they will lose business. I live in the Metro DC area, I can usually pick from 4 airports and at least 3 airlines wherever I want to go. Let me decide.
Airfare much cheaper than before deregulation.
@ Steve K -- Europe has these regulations, and would you say it has caused fares to increase and schedules to be padded there, beyond what we've seen in the United States?
feel free, Ben, to post the profit margin of EU airlines compared to US airlines.
there are lots of reasons EU airlines have much lower profit margins and excess regulation with greater delays is one of them.
Tim, Ben can publish the data on profit margins of American vs. EU airlines right after you publish the same on reliability.
see below
@Tim Dunn
Why should anyone care about Delta or United or American's profit margins when all they do with that cash is fluff their stock through buybacks? The airlines are PUBLIC transportation, they should exist to provide a reliable service, not pay out dividends to hedge funds.
Airlines are not going to invest in more reliable operations unless there is a cost incentive to do so. Requiring compensation to delayed passengers is an...
@Tim Dunn
Why should anyone care about Delta or United or American's profit margins when all they do with that cash is fluff their stock through buybacks? The airlines are PUBLIC transportation, they should exist to provide a reliable service, not pay out dividends to hedge funds.
Airlines are not going to invest in more reliable operations unless there is a cost incentive to do so. Requiring compensation to delayed passengers is an effective way to do that, with Europe being the prime example. Don't want to pay as much in compensation? Don't set unreasonably aggressive schedules for the season (summer thunderstorms, winter snow storms, fall hurricanes), improve maintenance practices, ensure adequate standby staff to cover for callouts, and improve the underlying IT infrastructure that makes all this crap run.
know, Dusty, airlines are not the NYC or Chicago subways.
US airlines are all for-profit companies that are largely publicly traded.
and the point is that you cannot ask a for-profit company to do something that is ultimately economically harmful to them.
Regulations are fine but if they incentivize bad behavior, such as increased cancellations because of the tarmac rule, then consumers are not better off.
It is precisely because people like you...
know, Dusty, airlines are not the NYC or Chicago subways.
US airlines are all for-profit companies that are largely publicly traded.
and the point is that you cannot ask a for-profit company to do something that is ultimately economically harmful to them.
Regulations are fine but if they incentivize bad behavior, such as increased cancellations because of the tarmac rule, then consumers are not better off.
It is precisely because people like you expect the government to solve problems that you consistently come up short in these arguments.
@Tim Dunn
Spare me the lolbertarian drivel. We absolutely can and do tell for-profit companies to do things that are economically harmful to them. Like forcing them to safely dispose of used oil/lubricants instead of dumping it down the drain. Or forcing them to meet a minimum standard of pollutants in engine exhaust.
We do these things because it is of greater benefit to the consumer to force companies to do these economically...
@Tim Dunn
Spare me the lolbertarian drivel. We absolutely can and do tell for-profit companies to do things that are economically harmful to them. Like forcing them to safely dispose of used oil/lubricants instead of dumping it down the drain. Or forcing them to meet a minimum standard of pollutants in engine exhaust.
We do these things because it is of greater benefit to the consumer to force companies to do these economically unattractive things, than to let them do it and keep a cheaper service. The government is the ONLY force that can make this happen, and it does that by regulation. If an industry cannot make a profit without abusing its customers and the public, that's a strong case that it should government-provided service rather than a private for-profit company.
And to be clear, there's 0 evidence that providing Eu261 style protections would suddenly make our airlines unprofitable. Because EU261 exists and while it isn't perfect and airlines do try to dodge paying out compensation, people do still get compensated for delays within the airline's control. That is a GOOD thing, and it incentivizes airlines to improve maintenance and staffing, and run realistic schedules, so that they don't have to pay out as much in compensation.
Here's the problem with your argument, Tim. These airlines have accepted billions of bailouts and subsidies from the US government, paid for by the American taxpayer. In exchange for these subsidies and bailouts, people should expect to receive reliable transportation in exchange for their $. If not, the customer should be made whole for the disruption.
I can't help picturing Tim Dunn at the airport when his flight gets cancelled last minute: I'm sure he tells the service desk "it's ok, don't worry about me, your bottom line matters much more than my travel plans, take my money and here's a little more".
i will vote with my travel dollars. Should the federal government do the same for bus, ferry, and train travel? Why stop there?
Congrats on living in a metro area where some semblance of choice and competition exists. Guess those of us who live near an airport dominated by a single carrier (and there are a lot of us) are just out of luck then.
To whoever Tim Dunn is, not sure why profit margin comparisons between EU and US airlines are relevant, unless you think profit margins at all costs (in this case, a lack of pretty...
Congrats on living in a metro area where some semblance of choice and competition exists. Guess those of us who live near an airport dominated by a single carrier (and there are a lot of us) are just out of luck then.
To whoever Tim Dunn is, not sure why profit margin comparisons between EU and US airlines are relevant, unless you think profit margins at all costs (in this case, a lack of pretty basic consumer protections) is the right call.
Also "airfare much cheaper than before deregulation" - true statement, but has nothing to do with this set of scrapped regulations. Cash comp for delayed flights neither existed then, nor now, so getting rid of something that never existed certainly didn't cause airfare prices to drop. Anyone with critical thinking skills can see that these are false equivalencies.
I am not against the proposed regulation, but it is naive to think that the previous administration proposed it in their last month in the office with good intentions (or that they want this regulation to be implemented). This was a political stunt to setup the new administration to fail with the public opinion knowing that they would cancel it. None of the administrations would go ahead with it, since although the public opinion is...
I am not against the proposed regulation, but it is naive to think that the previous administration proposed it in their last month in the office with good intentions (or that they want this regulation to be implemented). This was a political stunt to setup the new administration to fail with the public opinion knowing that they would cancel it. None of the administrations would go ahead with it, since although the public opinion is positive, the lobby and other interests would go against for both parties.
A clear example of democracy being overruled by corrupt business, bureaucrats and politicians. Who can ever claim that the USA is the land of the free?
Or the UK. Or France. Or Germany. Or Italy.
@FOG BINGO!!!
>or that they want this regulation to be implemented
The fact that you actually think the most pro-passenger DOT in decades DIDN'T want to implement an EU261 equivalent speaks volumes. Not everything is a plot to discredit your Mango Messiah.
The fact that half of voters see the government propose something that would be a huge benefit to them and say "No! I want the corporation to keep screwing me because somebody else might benefit!" is killing this country.
As (non-MAGA) American, I absolutely hate many policies of this administration. However, I do accept that elections have consequences. As messy as democracy is at times, it's better than any other form of government. This too shall pass.
IOW, all of the hand-wringing that went on here for 2 solid days accomplished precisely nothing.
and the people that swear they will fly airlines of other nationalities will still fly US airlines - certainly in the USA because that is the only nationality of airlines that are permitted to fly US passengers within the USA.
and it all comes down to what is legal; the US under multiple administrations has tried to undo...
IOW, all of the hand-wringing that went on here for 2 solid days accomplished precisely nothing.
and the people that swear they will fly airlines of other nationalities will still fly US airlines - certainly in the USA because that is the only nationality of airlines that are permitted to fly US passengers within the USA.
and it all comes down to what is legal; the US under multiple administrations has tried to undo the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 piece by piece. It is doubtful that this or other measures are legal under that Act. Trump might be appealing large parts of his agenda to the Supreme Court but this is one where they are actually following the law.
as for the incessant worship of European airlines, they operate less reliably than US airlines. That is a simple fact.
"they operate less reliably than US airlines"
All the more reason to appreciate E261 protections.
Tim, you post “They operate less reliably than US airlines” …. are you kidding? Are you actually trying to suggest that European airlines are less reliable than those in the U.S.? I would really like to know which nincompoop provided you with that fake news?
feel free to post the on-time percentages for EU vs. US airlines.
Yes, EU (and UK) airlines operate far less reliably than US airlines.
For EU airlines, in 2024, 72.4% of flights arrived on time; in the US, it was 78.3%
It is a far too simplistic take reducing the picture to two numbers. Reading the 2024 "Comparison of Air Traffic Management
related operational and economic
performance" report jointly published by the FAA and EUROCONTROL, it points out that a more complex ATC system and the war in Ukraine as the major factors affecting flights in Europe. Correspondingly, a much higher proportion of European flights were affected due to an ATC reason than the...
It is a far too simplistic take reducing the picture to two numbers. Reading the 2024 "Comparison of Air Traffic Management
related operational and economic
performance" report jointly published by the FAA and EUROCONTROL, it points out that a more complex ATC system and the war in Ukraine as the major factors affecting flights in Europe. Correspondingly, a much higher proportion of European flights were affected due to an ATC reason than the US, which is not reflective of airline operational reliability. In contrast, most delays in the US were caused by weather, which is an indication of operations.
In other words, the difference in on-time arrivals could very well be explained by the US having better ATC performance. And it's not out of the question that if Europe improves on that, it would become apparent in the on-time arrivals that EU airlines are better-run.
we can argue the reasons all day long but US airlines under the present environment operate more reliably.
and you would find few people that think that US ATC is great right now - because it is not.
If the reason for US airline performance being better is because of ATC, then Europe's system has to be in really bad shape.
Tim, you are really skating on thin ice with your argument old bean. I’m not convinced that you are comparing apples with apples, but rather apples with pears. Sadly, I cannot put my finger on a comparison report which I read in the spring. If my memory serves me correctly, it would have cast grave doubts upon your submission.
another GREAT REASON to fly EUROPEAN CARRIERS INSTEAD OF US CARRIERS!
US carriers flying to the UK and EU are subject to those jurisdictions' respective regulations. Or any other country. The issue would affect intra-US flights.
@Lee, only US carriers departing the EU are subject to EU261. For arriving into the EU, only EU carriers are subject to it.
Absolutely correct, one can now avoid the USA and U.S. airlines too, as they are so hostile towards anyone who can see through their woke rhetoric and propaganda.
Airlines have always had the ability to rebook you on another airline. You just have to ask them to release the ticket to the other airline.
@ JamesG -- Right, airlines have the ability to rebook you on another airline, but they typically choose not to (which is why regulations like this would be valuable). Most US airlines don't allow frontline employees to book passengers on other airlines unless a certain (typically very long) threshold is met.
@Ben
I had this happen to me in 2019 when I was flying the family out to Vancouver for an Alaska cruise. AA cancelled our initial outbound from ATL about 7 hours before departure. They would only rebook us on AA metal, and the quickest possible routing we could get from them had us arrive in Vancouver with an 8 hour delay from our original schedule. We basically lost a day of sightseeing in...
@Ben
I had this happen to me in 2019 when I was flying the family out to Vancouver for an Alaska cruise. AA cancelled our initial outbound from ATL about 7 hours before departure. They would only rebook us on AA metal, and the quickest possible routing we could get from them had us arrive in Vancouver with an 8 hour delay from our original schedule. We basically lost a day of sightseeing in Vancouver because of that, and if I hadn't had the foresight to arrive the day before we would have missed the cruise departure.
They have the ability, but when they refuse, there's little you can do. I had a flight to GIG on AA that got cancelled last minute because the crew didn't show up. There was another flight on a different airline leaving a few hours later but the agent on the phone kept repeating that he can only rebook me on AA flights.
Jetblue only rebooks on Jetblue.
That's when I miss the EC261 protections that would apply in Europe...
People voted for this, so where is the problem? Elections have consequences.
Careful. When I said this, some readers attacked.
49.8% of the people voted for it with a small 1.5% margin over the other candidate.
i suspect the airlines will have paid very well for that decision. such a corrupt place.
MAGA get what they deserve.
MAGA? That's short sighted. Are MAGATs the only ones travelling? We are all suffering. MAGATS and non MAGATS alike.
" the golden age of air travel " Pfft Gaslighting at its finest. Only this administration could make anarchy attractive.
More like the golden wig age of travel. Take that away and you’ll notice a poorly maintained bald spot
Well, airlines can’t control the weather so…
Which is fine, as weather delays are exempted from compensation.
Scienticians ARE controlling the weather and this scares the heck out of The Administration.
I even put this blame on Biden administration, many of the much needed regulations were discussed too long and put into effect or action at the dusk of his administration. They just ended up DOA.
Nothing good came out of Trump administration cancelling it. There is real benefit to holding airlines accountable and making them have incentives to perform better. Some here will take their sweet time to argue against this with misguided thoughts...
I even put this blame on Biden administration, many of the much needed regulations were discussed too long and put into effect or action at the dusk of his administration. They just ended up DOA.
Nothing good came out of Trump administration cancelling it. There is real benefit to holding airlines accountable and making them have incentives to perform better. Some here will take their sweet time to argue against this with misguided thoughts but they need to see how the EU261 has very much benefitted consumers and airlines, especially for airlines that operated LCCs who do their best to avoid ending up making any such payouts by having a reliable schedule. TD made some bizarre arguments about Ryanair but he seems to have missed why they are sooo reliable for one reason or another (everyone knows how Ryanair is also infamous for finding all sorts of loopholes)
Nailed it! Political stunt made during the last minute of the former administration knowing they would not have to deal with the fallout and the new administration would take the blame. Gottta give credit for the sinister move though.
>I even put this blame on Biden administration, many of the much needed regulations were discussed too long and put into effect or action at the dusk of his administration
If they rammed it through you can bet Republicans would have challenged it and gotten it overturned. The party of small, limited government is only actually for that when they aren't in power.