Revocation of Certain Executive Orders Concerning Federal Regulation

Background

The Regulatory Reform Landscape Pre-Revocation

Before President Biden's executive order was enacted, the regulatory framework in the United States was heavily influenced by the Trump administration's focus on reducing federal oversight and regulatory constraints. Executive orders such as EO 13771, which imposed a "one-in, two-out" requirement for federal regulations, significantly curtailed the ability of agencies to introduce new regulatory measures without simultaneously removing existing ones. Biden's order revoked these limitations, thereby granting agencies greater freedom to pursue regulatory actions. The revocation allowed for an expansion of regulatory measures specifically aimed at addressing pressing social issues like climate change and racial inequality, as well as bolstering public health measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Agency Directives Without Rulemaking

The revocation of prior executive orders allowed federal agencies to issue directives that bypassed the cumbersome rulemaking process, effectively streamlining decision-making to more swiftly address national concerns. Agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Labor were able to more aggressively pursue environmental protections and worker safety measures, respectively. This flexible approach empowered agencies to react nimbly to emerging problems, improving public health safeguards and labor standards without the delays associated with formal rulemaking, which can often take years to finalize.

Operational Adjustments and Enforcement Enhancements

Beyond directives, agencies undertook significant operational adjustments as a result of the restored regulatory freedom. For instance, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) ramped up efforts to enforce pandemic-related health protocols, expanding testing and vaccination mandates. Meanwhile, racial equity analyses became a standard component of policy development across multiple departments, including the Department of Education and the Department of Justice. The abolition of regulatory reform task forces also redirected resources towards collaborative and comprehensive policy-making processes rather than the narrow focus on regulatory reduction that characterized the prior administration.

Reason for Revocation

Political Ideology and Regulatory Philosophy

The reinstatement of the executive orders previously revoked by Biden signified a broader ideological shift under Trump, marking a return to prioritizing deregulation and reducing governmental intervention in economic activities. This shift was rooted in a conservative regulatory philosophy that views government oversight as an impediment to business efficiency and market autonomy. Trump's political ideology emphasized minimizing federal control and promoting free-market principles, a stance that often sees regulation as a burden rather than a benefit to societal welfare.

Economic and Business Motivations

Economically, the revocation aligned with efforts to stimulate business growth by eliminating what were perceived as excessive regulatory requirements that could stifle innovation and competitiveness. This perspective reflected concerns from industry leaders and economically influential lobbying groups who argued that stringent regulatory frameworks limit economic expansion and job creation. Trump's decision to revert the regulatory policy was driven by the intention to invigorate the economy, which he believed could be better achieved under a deregulated environment where businesses face fewer constraints.

Reorienting Federal Priorities

In response to political pressure from conservative constituencies, the revocation also represented an attempt to reorient federal priorities towards traditional Republican values, including states’ rights and individual liberties. By reducing the central government's regulatory reach, the Trump administration sought to empower state governments to tailor regulations based on local needs and conditions, enhancing the principle of federalism. This reorientation was likely seen as a necessary correction to what was perceived as an over-expansion of federal power under Biden's policies.

Winners

Corporate Interests and Major Industries

Large corporations and major industries, particularly in sectors like fossil fuels, pharmaceuticals, and agriculture, stood to gain significantly from the revocation. For instance, energy giants such as ExxonMobil and Chevron benefited from relaxed environmental regulations, which reduced compliance costs and allowed for expanded operations without the stringent oversight imposed by environmental protection measures. The removal of barriers to drilling and pipeline construction further reinforced the profitability and market dominance of these corporations.

Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs)

SMEs benefited from reduced administrative burdens and the costly compliance requirements associated with federal regulations. The simplified business environment created by the revocation facilitated expansion and innovation within these enterprises, affording them greater flexibility to adapt to market demands. By alleviating the compliance load, these businesses were more free to focus on growth initiatives and competitive strategies, potentially leading to increased job creation and economic stimulation at the local level.

Investment and Financial Sectors

The financial sector, including investment banks and hedge funds, also saw the potential for increased profits under a deregulated regime. By reducing the level of oversight on complex trading activities and financial instruments, these institutions could operate with greater latitude, pursuing aggressive investment strategies that, while risky, also promised high returns. Additionally, the relaxation of regulatory constraints facilitated cross-border investments and expanded opportunities for portfolio diversification.

Losers

Environmental Advocacy Groups

Environmental advocacy groups emerged as significant losers in the wake of the revocation, as the removal of robust regulatory measures weakened protections for natural resources and ecosystems. Organizations such as the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council expressed concerns that deregulation would lead to increased pollution, habitat destruction, and a reversal of progress made in combating climate change. The perceived rollback of environmental standards presented a substantial barrier to achieving long-term sustainability goals and protecting biodiversity.

Public Health and Safety Advocates

Advocates for public health and safety, including grassroots movements and healthcare organizations, found themselves disadvantaged by the shift towards deregulation. The revocation potentially compromised efforts to uphold stringent health and safety standards across industries, as seen in sectors like manufacturing and food production. The downstream effects of fewer regulatory checks included risks to consumers, workers, and vulnerable communities, who could be exposed to greater hazards due to lax enforcement of safety protocols.

Marginalized Communities

Marginalized communities, including low-income households and racial minorities, likely faced heightened challenges due to the weakened regulatory framework. Regulatory protections often serve as critical safeguards for these communities against systemic inequities and exploitation. The abandonment of equity-focused policy measures and the rollback of civil rights protections eroded the progress towards social justice and racial equality that had been championed under Biden’s administration. The deregulation opened the door for discriminatory practices with reduced federal oversight, exacerbating existing inequalities.