Photo of Paul Ray

Paul Ray

Paul Ray advises clients on regulatory opportunities and challenges and helps them formulate and execute advocacy strategies for their regulatory policy priorities before the executive branch and Congress.

During the first Trump Administration, Paul held various senior positions at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, including as acting, and then Senate-confirmed, head of the office. As OIRA Administrator (the "regulations czar"), Paul supervised the review of hundreds of regulations from across the government, drafted numerous executive orders governing the regulatory process, and led the Administration’s regulatory reform effort. As a result of this experience, Paul is well-positioned to help clients understand and achieve regulatory policy priorities in the context of the government’s regulatory agenda and ongoing reform efforts.

Most recently, Paul was also the Director of the Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. In that role, he supervised the formulation of the Foundation’s economic and regulatory policy recommendations and provided technical assistance to congressional committees and staff regarding legislative changes to the regulatory process. In addition to his role at The Heritage Foundation, Paul also served as a Senior Advisor at a strategic advisory firm. Before his time in government, Paul practiced law at a law firm in Washington, specializing in administrative law matters.

Prior to his role at the White House, Paul was Counselor to the Secretary at the U.S. Department of Labor. There he led departmental efforts in high-profile rulemakings and helped formulate the Department’s legal positions and strategy.

Paul served as a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito and as a law clerk to the Honorable Debra Livingston of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Paul is a thought leader in the conservative legal movement and is a frequent commentator and speaker on regulatory policy and reform matters, including at law schools, professional gatherings, and other venues. He is the Chairman of Innovations in Peacebuilding International and the Regulatory Process Working Group of the Federalist Society’s Regulatory Transparency Project and a public member of the Administrative Conference of the United States. Paul is also an adjunct lecturer at the Hillsdale College School of Government.

Companies find themselves in the most dynamic regulatory environment in recent memory.  That is due in part to changes President Trump has made to the way the White House interacts with the agencies.  By dramatically increasing the number, tempo, and detail of executive orders, Trump has strengthened presidential control of the executive branch.  The White House has never mattered more in regulatory policy-making, and companies should adjust their advocacy efforts accordingly.Continue Reading The Trump Administration’s Enhanced Use of Executive Orders

On September 24, 2025, Covington’s tech industry experts explored what legal teams, government affairs professionals, and business leaders at tech companies need to know during this pivotal period and offered insights into anticipated challenges and emerging opportunities in the year ahead. Eight Covington attorneys shared their insights during a 60-minute session moderated by Covington partner Holly Fechner. Key takeaways from the Forum are outlined below.Continue Reading Covington Tech Briefing Spotlight: Impact of Latest Policy Developments on the Tech Industry

We have reached the six-month anniversary of President Trump’s landmark executive order that extended the regulatory review process run by the White House’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) to regulations issued by independent agencies.[1]  This order marked an important change for many companies, especially in the financial services and energy sectors, whose regulators are now subject to White House regulatory review for the first time.

President Trump’s order left open many questions about how OIRA review of independent agency rules would work in practice.  Here at the six-month mark, we have seen enough such reviews to begin to answer these questions.  The bottom line for business is that OIRA and the independent agencies have begun to work out a harmonious relationship.  The independent agencies have acquiesced in OIRA review; indeed, nearly all major independent regulators have by now submitted rules for review.  Reviews—far from imposing major delays on independent agency rulemaking, as some feared—have been remarkably speedy, with both OIRA and the agencies themselves willing to dispense with formalities to expedite reviews.  In short, OIRA review is being integrated into the regulatory process of the independent agencies without undue disruption.Continue Reading OIRA Review of Independent Agency Rulemakings: What We Know So Far

On May 12, the Federal Register put on public inspection a group of 42 proposed and final rules from the Department of Energy.  The rules cover a wide variety of topics, ranging from energy efficiency standards to biofuel production to the conditions attached to grants from the Department.  Many of these rules are notable for the extreme brevity of their analysis.  Taken together, these proposed and final rules offer one of our first windows into the way the new Trump administration intends to expedite the rulemaking process.

The Federal Register generally must put documents it intends to publish on public display a few days before publication.  On May 12, the virtual public inspection window was mostly taken up with proposed and final rules from the Department of Energy.  DoEoffered for display 29 proposed rules and 13 direct final rules.  (The Register also displayed a fourteenth DoE direct final rule that the agency subsequently withdrew.)

The Administrative Procedure Act requires that notices of proposed rulemaking include “either the terms or substance of the proposed rule or a description of the subjects and issues involved.”[1]  Courts have interpreted section 553 to require agencies to provide sufficient detail about their proposed rules for the public to comment intelligently on them.  Similarly, final rules issued under the Administrative Procedure Act must contain “a concise general statement of their basis and purpose.”[2]  Case law requires that statements of basis and purpose contain sufficient detail for courts to conduct “hard look” review under 5 U.S.C. 706’s arbitrariness standard, assessing whether agencies have adequate reasons for the regulations they adopt.Continue Reading Department of Energy Rulemakings Show What’s in Store under Trump’s Deregulatory Initiative