CSS Opposes the Nomination of Casey Mulligan as Chief Counsel of the Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy
March 26, 2025 | Download PDF
Senator Joni Ernst, Chair
Senator Edward Markey, Ranking Member
Senate Small Business & Entrepreneurship Committee
428A Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
CC: Members of the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Committee
Dear Chair Ernst and Ranking Member Markey:
The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards (CSS), an alliance of over 200 consumer, small business, labor, scientific, environmental, health, and public interest organizations that represent millions of Americans and advocate for effective regulations to protect the public, writes to urge you to oppose the nomination of Casey Mulligan as Chief Counsel of the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Office of Advocacy. CSS has longstanding concerns about the problematic role that SBA Advocacy has played in the rulemaking process, which has resulted in the delaying and weakening of regulatory protections for consumers, workers, the environment, and public health and safety.
SBA Advocacy was created by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as an “independent” office tasked with overseeing federal agency compliance with the RFA and representing “the voice of small business” in the regulatory process. Yet, over the course of its history, SBA advocacy has consistently demonstrated that it is anything but an “independent” or “neutral” government agency. Instead, there is strong evidence that SBA Advocacy is in reality acting in a partisan and ideological manner by consistently scrutinizing and expressing concerns about new federal regulations that protect the public while doing the opposite when those regulations are rolled back.
A recent analysis by CSS co-chair Public Citizen of so-called “SBREFA” panels under the previous three presidential administrations proves the point. Specifically, the number of SBREFA panels that occurred from the Obama Administration through the current Administration reveals a clear pattern of robust compliance with the RFA under the Obama and Biden Administrations with the opposite being the case under the first Trump Administration. According to data from SBA Advocacy’s website, there were a total of 31 SBREFA panels completed under the Obama Administration. By contrast, there were a total of only three SBREFA panels completed under the entire first Trump Administration. Under the Biden Administration, there were a total of 22 SBREFA panels completed. Thus, the three agencies subject to SBREFA completed a total of 53 panels during the Obama and Biden Administrations combined, but only three panels during the first Trump Administration.
Such a significant disparity in the number of SBREFA panels gives the strong appearance that the process overseen by SBA Advocacy is hardly neutral but rather is one-sided in practice by only seeking feedback from small businesses when the agencies subject to SBREFA promulgate new regulatory protections, but not when those regulatory protections are rolled back. This aligns with previous criticism from the Government Accountability Office that SBA Advocacy has ignored certain small business viewpoints, namely those that support federal regulations, while favoring other small business viewpoints, namely those that oppose federal regulations, in an unbalanced and asymmetric fashion.
Making matters worse, SBA Advocacy commissioned research purporting to find that regulation costs small business $1.8 trillion annually, yet the study was so badly discredited by independent reviewers that SBA Advocacy had to fully disavow the study and its findings.
Shockingly, even after that embarrassing incident, SBA Advocacy attempted once again in 2018 to issue a contract to the same researchers of the disavowed study, Mark and Nicole Crain, for a similar study on the costs of federal regulation. Fortunately, the office was forced to cancel the contract after media reporting exposed the plan. While this prevented another misleading study on the purported costs of federal regulations on small business from further polluting the debate around regulatory impacts, SBA Advocacy was not able to recoup the first half of the contract that was already paid to the Crains, resulting in wasteful spending.
CSS is deeply concerned that the nominee to head SBA Advocacy, Casey Mulligan, is not the right fit at a time when the agency is in need of significant reform and accountability. Rather, it is clear that Professor Mulligan’s views on regulation and his past one-sided research on the economic costs of regulation are likely to exacerbate the problems at SBA Advocacy if he is confirmed.
For example, Mulligan has expressed ideological opposition to regulations that protect the public, including limits on pollution, increases to minimum wage, healthcare protections for those with preexisting medical conditions, and sick leave for employees. Mulligan’s past research aligns with these views, most notably a report during his tenure as Chief Economist at the Council of Economic Advisers during the first Trump Administration. The report focused only on the purported costs of regulations that President Trump repealed and completely ignored the benefits that those regulations provided to consumers, workers, the environment, and the public’s health and safety. Such dubious research is of particular concern given SBA Advocacy’s past controversy regarding discredited research on regulatory costs.
CSS believes that SBA Advocacy is in need of deep reforms to ensure that it is remaining both “neutral” and “independent” in faithfully ensuring the Trump Administration’s compliance with the RFA as Congress intended. Given his past record, Mulligan is unlikely to undertake such reforms and bring accountability to SBA Advocacy as needed. For these reasons, CSS urges members of the Committee to oppose his nomination as Chief Counsel of SBA Advocacy.
Sincerely,
Rachel Weintraub
Executive Director
Coalition for Sensible Safeguards