Economic Relief Related to the COVID-19 Pandemic

Background

The executive order issued by President Biden aimed at addressing the severe economic downturn spurred by the COVID-19 pandemic. It directed federal agencies to identify opportunities for deploying resources to support struggling individuals, families, and businesses. This order primarily targeted sectors that were heavily impacted by the pandemic, such as small businesses and communities of color, ensuring they received the necessary financial relief and support. The implementation of this order saw the establishment of guidelines that allowed for more efficient distribution of federal aid through existing relief programs, which included direct financial assistance and grants to ensure that aid reached those most in need.

This executive order also facilitated a significant adjustment in how federal agencies conducted operations. Agencies were required to utilize data-driven approaches to streamline access to relief programs by reducing bureaucratic impediments. By prioritizing improved coordination among federal, state, and local programs, the order sought to prevent miscommunication and mismanagement of resources. As part of these changes, the internal mechanisms of various agencies were adjusted to better respond to the unprecedented needs brought upon by the crisis, focusing efforts on closing gaps in program accessibility that particularly affected underserved communities.

Furthermore, the order served as a catalyst for temporary policy shifts within agencies that lacked formal rulemaking. For example, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) adapted its operations to prioritize housing security amid widespread job losses, allowing for a temporary pause on evictions and foreclosures. Similarly, the Small Business Administration (SBA) adjusted its guidelines to expedite the processing of loans and grants under its economic relief initiatives, critical for maintaining jobs within small enterprises that formed the backbone of the American economy.

Reason for Revocation

The revocation of this economic relief order by President Trump in early 2025 marked a significant ideological shift. Throughout his previous presidency, Trump had underscored the importance of minimizing federal intervention in the economy, favoring policies that promote individual responsibility and market-driven solutions. His decision to rescind the order can be seen as a continuation of this deregulatory approach, reaffirming a belief in reducing government dependency and promoting the self-reliance of both individuals and businesses.

An additional dimension to the decision lies in a broader political context, where a gradual return to pre-pandemic normalcy reduced the perceived necessity for continued government involvement at the scale prescribed by the order. With economic indicators showing signs of recovery, the Trump administration may have viewed the maintenance of extensive federal assistance programs as fiscally irresponsible and potentially conducive to inflating government debt.

It is also likely that Trump's revocation was a move to reshape federal priorities and redirect resources, potentially towards strengthening domestic industries and cutting taxes as part of a wider strategy to stimulate growth. By removing policies that were seen as ineffectively managed or overly burdensome, the administration sought to free the economy from the vestiges of pandemic-era controls and stimulate innovation and entrepreneurship through less restrictive measures.

The revocation can additionally be seen as part of a larger effort to consolidate political support by aligning federal policies with the priorities and values of Trump's base, which often leaned towards reducing bureaucratic oversight and enabling the autonomy of state governments. Thus, dismantling a federal framework that imposed decision-making from the top down would align with such objectives, allowing states greater discretion in determining their respective economic priorities and solutions.

Winners

Large corporations, particularly those in sectors like real estate and finance, are likely to benefit from the rollback of government interventions that previously restricted their operations or imposed temporary constraints such as eviction moratoriums. With these limitations lifted, opportunities to reclaim profitability through normalizing rental operations and foreclosures might increase, allowing them to optimize their revenue streams and operational efficiencies.

Financial institutions, including major banks that manage business loans, could also experience positive impacts. The transition away from federally mediated relief measures reduces the competitive edge given to government-backed loans, allowing these institutions to reclaim their market position in offering credit and financial products to businesses without the intervention of subsidized federal programs.

The revocation may also provide advantages to states with leadership more sympathetic to conservative principles of economic liberalism. Without the direct federal oversight encouraged by the order, states that sought greater autonomy to design programs tailored to their demographic needs could find it easier to enact locally conceived policies. This could enable states to capitalize on the discretion to attract business developments without navigating federal requirements tied to the relief order.

Losers

Communities that relied heavily on federal assistance, particularly marginalized groups such as low-income families and communities of color, stand as the primary groups disadvantaged by this policy shift. The withdrawal of federally coordinated economic relief could exacerbate existing challenges related to housing and food security, especially as these communities faced systemic hurdles in accessing state-level and privately run support programs.

Small businesses, especially those without sufficient cash reserves or credit access, were dealt a substantial blow. The closure of federal relief programs stripped them of crucial lifelines that enabled them to manage operational costs and weather pandemic-induced economic fluctuations. As a result, these businesses may struggle to survive, leading to potential closures and job losses in local economies where they play a significant role.

The decision is also likely to adversely affect advocacy groups that have worked alongside federal programs to channel aid to vulnerable populations. With diminished federal support, these organizations might face more difficulty in fulfilling their missions to bridge gaps in assistance provision. They are now left with the uncertain task of navigating altered landscapes where funding sources are not as readily available or coordinated, hindering their capability to provide cohesive and effective community support.