Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda

Background

Before it was revoked, the executive order focused on reducing regulatory burdens. It mandated that each federal agency appoint a Regulatory Reform Officer (RRO) responsible for overseeing the enforcement of regulatory reforms aligned with the broader Trump administration's initiative to reduce regulations and control costs. The agencies, following this guideline, launched numerous reviews of existing regulations, seeking to identify and rescind those considered outdated, duplicative, or overly cumbersome. In practice, this led to the easing of compliance requirements for industries such as energy, agriculture, and manufacturing, which had long bemoaned what they saw as excessive federal oversight.

Additionally, the executive order established Regulatory Reform Task Forces within each agency. These task forces were charged with evaluating existing regulations to recommend their repeal or modification if deemed inefficient or overly burdensome. This accelerated a shift towards deregulation, reducing the overall count of federal regulations by requiring agencies to eliminate two regulations for every new regulation issued, aligning with Executive Order 13771's "one in, two out" policy. Many regulatory changes were pushed through without formal rulemaking, utilizing agency directives and guidance to provide quick relief to targeted sectors.

Operational adjustments were starkly observed in agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Labor. The EPA, under this framework, rolled back several environmental protections, citing economic growth and job creation, particularly favoring fossil fuel industries. Meanwhile, the Department of Labor adjusted rules affecting workplace safety and wage regulations, all in pursuit of reducing the compliance costs on businesses. These efforts were extensively publicized as steps towards unshackling American enterprises from red tape, intending to foster economic dynamism.

Reason for Revocation

The order's revocation by President Joseph R. Biden Jr. on January 20, 2021, coincided with a substantial ideological shift in federal policies. The Biden administration revealed a pivot back towards embracing regulatory frameworks intended to address pressing issues such as climate change, worker protections, and public health. The ideology underpinning this shift emphasized the role of federal oversight as a mechanism to advance social welfare and environmental sustainability over unfettered market operations.

The Biden team viewed many of the regulations targeted by the previous administration as vital safeguards rather than impediments to progress. Comprehensive federal regulations were seen as essential conduits to ensure environmental protections, fair labor practices, and consumer safety, offering stability and setting clear standards for long-term economic health. This ideological framework rooted in ensuring equity, justice, and sustainability as integral components of governance took precedence once more.

The larger agenda was to strengthen regulatory capabilities and address perceived gaps left by the previous administration. The belief was that regulatory agencies should steer economic activities toward sustainable practices while safeguarding public and environmental health. President Biden’s administration quickly embarked on restoring science-based policymaking and re-integrating climate considerations into federal regulatory efforts.

The revocation was also a corrective measure to restore public trust in federal institutions, which the administration argued had been eroded by widespread deregulation and the prioritization of corporate interests over the common good. With this course correction, the Biden administration sought to re-establish federal agencies as bulwarks of public interest, effectively using their authority to address not just economic issues but broader societal challenges.

Winners

The revocation of the order significantly benefitted environmental advocacy groups and communities disproportionately affected by pollution and environmental degradation. These groups had been vocal critics of the broad deregulatory approach and welcomed the renewed focus on regulatory oversight. Indigenous communities and others in frontline areas likely saw the revocation as positive, especially with the heightened emphasis on climate change and pollution mitigation efforts under the Biden administration.

Certain segments of the labor force, including unionized workers and advocates for workplace rights, stood to gain as well. The revocation signaled a return to stricter labor regulations, which potentially included enhanced workplace safety standards and improved wage protections. Workers in industries previously subject to relaxed oversight might have anticipated improved conditions and stronger enforcement of existing legal protections.

Renewable energy sectors were arguably among the biggest beneficiaries. The shift away from the deregulation of fossil fuel industries to policies encouraging clean energy investments suggested a long-term strategic pivot. Such a policy change likely meant more federal support, grants, and incentives being directed towards solar, wind, and other renewable industries, fostering growth and innovation in these areas.

Losers

Conversely, the fossil fuel industries, which had been major beneficiaries under the order, were likely to feel the impact of its revocation. Coal, oil, and natural gas sectors, which had leveraged the regulatory rollbacks to expand operations, may have viewed the return of stricter environmental regulations as a setback. This was particularly poignant for companies that had invested heavily in expanded production and extraction projects under the relaxed regulatory environment.

Small businesses that had enjoyed reduced compliance costs under the deregulated regime might also have faced increased operational costs. Many such enterprises, particularly those in manufacturing and agriculture, may have been required to readjust to enhanced regulatory scrutiny, potentially burdening them with additional compliance and reporting requirements once again.

Within the political leadership advocating for light-touch government intervention in markets, the decision may have been seen as a regressive move. Deregulation had been a key component of their economic doctrine, and the revocation represented a dismantling of one of their central policy platforms. As these groups reassessed their strategies under the new regulatory landscape, their spheres of influence likely shifted to adjusting or counter-advocating the renewed regulatory momentum.