If this faucet fracas is a presidential power grab, it’s an odd one.

Sure, Donald Trump’s executive order liberating low-flow devices from the constraints imposed on them via an Obama-era presidential decree might seem “trivial.” In fact, the president’s edict is another “power grab” that should keep civic-minded Americans on edge.

That was the assessment rendered by the Sydney Morning Herald’s Alan Kohler, whose indictment of the Trump administration’s conduct sprawled well beyond the water pressure consumers should expect from their multi-head shower systems. When it comes to plumbing fixtures, Kohler relied on Bloomberg contributor and economist Noah Feldman, who objected to the administration’s apparent failure to observe the proper public comment period mandated by the Administrative Procedures Act when promulgating its new rule.

“Notice and comment is unnecessary because I am ordering the repeal,” the president said in an apparent abrogation of the 1946 APA. As a New York Times report observed, if this is a “power grab,” it’s a reckless one that is unlikely to pan out in the administration’s favor. “Agencies that do not follow those procedures often find their actions blocked by the courts,” the dispatch noted. That’s not small beer: Conservatives who want to see the executive branch promote fewer burdensome regulations should also insist on the scrupulous observance of the rules lest they see their desired reforms overturned on technicalities.

It must also be said, however, that if this is a presidential power grab, it’s an odd one. It seems the administration is asserting expansive executive power only to cede it.

Beyond the president’s executive orders retracting regulations limiting the fixtures consumers can purchase, a ProPublica investigation detailed the steps being taken “outside the Oval Office” to deregulate the shower sector.

That report notes that the administration is attempting to terminate the Department of Energy’s contracts with private interests that help the government formulate and enforce regulations, which “could cripple the government’s efficiency standards program.” Environmental groups are, of course, up in arms. But so, too, are industry representatives:

Appliance manufacturers seem almost as concerned. “This is not a positive development,” said Josh Greene, vice president for government affairs at A.O. Smith, the largest manufacturer of water heaters in the U.S. Terminating the Guidehouse contract, he said, would create “a wild Wild West” where “upstart manufacturers” are free to import poor-quality products because “they know there’s no one to enforce the rules. That’s not good for American manufacturing and it’s not good for consumers.”

Again, what we’re confronted with here isn’t the administration accumulating power for itself but relinquishing it to provide Americans more options. Now, consumers might be unfamiliar with those options. They might encounter more diversity in terms of product quality and cost. But the assumption that they will be worse off as a result of this sudden flowering of competition is baked into the rest of ProPublica’s piece, which informs consumers that they are (or should be) satisfied with the quality of their over-regulated plumbing fixtures and the money “efficiency standards” save them over time.

Perhaps these objections have nothing to do with consumer protections. As ProPublica concedes, Green has argued that his firm would be “disadvantaged” by the rollback of regulations with which much of the industry has already complied. In addition, the new rules would allow non-compliant competitors to enter the market unencumbered by the barriers to entry that advantage established firms.

“The president is asserting king-like authority,” the director of a pro-regulation non-profit told ProPublica’s reporters. Rhetorically, at least, that is true. Insofar as that domineering talk matches reality, though, it is likely only to imperil Trump’s initiatives. Meanwhile, Trump’s imperious rhetoric is being deployed in service not to the accumulation of executive authority but its disaggregation.