RUTHFULLY YOURS

As he prepares to leave office in three weeks, President Obama is still trying to shape his legacy. On Dec. 20 the White House announced the withdrawal of millions of acres of Atlantic and Arctic territory from petroleum development. This week Mr. Obama proclaimed 1.35 million acres in Utah and 300,000 acres in Nevada to be new national monuments. But all the soon-to-be ex-president will prove is the fleeting nature of executive power.

These actions, like many others he has taken, are vulnerable to reversal by President-elect Trump. In our constitutional system, no policy can long endure without the cooperation of both the executive and legislative branches. Under Article I of the Constitution, only Congress can enact domestic statutes with any degree of permanence. And because of the Constitution’s separation of powers, no policy will survive for long without securing and retaining a consensus beyond a simple majority.

As president, Mr. Trump can easily reverse the most unwarranted and costly regulations issued in the last few months. Under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), a simple majority of each house may expeditiously disapprove such regulations, so long as the president signs the bill. A CRA disapproval would have the added virtue of automatically prohibiting any future, “substantially similar” rule without congressional action.

Mr. Trump can clear the way for Congress by halting all current rule-makings and ordering agencies to stop enforcing rules enacted in the last two years (or longer). After their defense of the administration’s refusal to enforce the immigration laws, liberals would have no legitimate grounds to oppose Mr. Trump’s temporary enforcement halt.

Mr. Obama’s unilateral actions, by executive order, proclamation or memoranda, are even more vulnerable. The courts have declared some void, including the immigration deportation orders. Mr. Trump can simply order the Justice Department to acquiesce in those decisions and save the public the trouble of litigating others. Mr. Obama taunted his political adversaries that if he didn’t get what he wanted from Congress, he would use his “pen” and “phone.” Those tools also work in reverse. CONTINUE AT SITE

Among the Republican priorities in 2017 should be dismantling a culture of bureaucratic control at the Food and Drug Administration that poisons innovation and costs lives. Here’s an idea: Update part of the approval process that was patient zero for distorting data on a drug for Duchenne muscular dystrophy.

We’ve reported on the drama over eteplirsen, which FDA approved in September and is now marketed as Exondys 51 by Sarepta Therapeutics. Midlevel bureaucrats have since disparaged the therapy in public, and some insurers are denying coverage. Much of the confusion results from an April show trial known as an advisory committee meeting. A process that is supposed to provide independent advice to the FDA instead became a venue to mislead a panel of nonexperts—and the public—about the drug’s efficacy.

Advisory committees exist so FDA can solicit expert counsel, but the agency stacks panels with allies whose career currency is prestige and government funding. Such committees usually vote the way FDA wants—and then the agency tends to follow the recommendation. On eteplirsen, the panel voted 6-7 against accelerated approval after a critical FDA review, which was later overruled by agency management in a rare exception amid unusual public scrutiny.

The 13-member committee that checked out eteplirsen included: a psychiatrist, a stroke doctor and several others with no experience in Duchenne. The agency seldom invites true experts because anyone who has ever talked to a drug company is deemed financially conflicted. In rare diseases like Duchenne, that problem is more pronounced because the pool of experts can be so limited.

Yet meet Caleb Alexander, chairman of the committee. Dr. Alexander invited speakers at the meeting to state organizations they represent. He read this statement at least a dozen times but neglected to mention his own conflict of interest: Dr. Alexander has received a large FDA grant, information that is available online. The conceit is that folks like Dr. Alexander are less motivated by pecuniary interests than someone who has consulted for a company. Dr. Alexander voted against approval.