Trump's deregulation
Executive summary
President Trump’s second-term deregulatory agenda centers on an executive order requiring agencies to repeal 10 existing rules for every new rule and broad steps to speed rollbacks and limit analyses of regulatory benefits (see White House fact sheet and executive order text) [1] [2]. Critics warn many rollbacks face legal and practical limits — courts and statutory constraints have blocked or delayed prior efforts — while supporters and administration allies tout large dollar savings and faster rulemaking [3] [4] [5].
1. Bold moves from Day One: 10-for-1 and other orders
The centerpiece of the administration’s approach is the “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation” executive order, issued January 31, 2025, which directs agencies to identify at least 10 existing rules, regulations, or guidance documents to repeal for every new rule and to ensure the net incremental cost of rulemaking is “significantly less than zero” for FY2025 [1] [2]. The order also rescinds newer OMB regulatory-analysis guidance and asks agencies to reinstate older standards, a change observers say shifts how benefits and costs are weighed [5].
2. Administration’s claims: big savings and rapid rollback
White House materials and allied testimony frame the effort as large-scale relief: the White House claimed halted Biden-era rules saved families thousands, and the Small Business Administration’s advocacy office testified that rollback activity had saved Americans “$907 billion and counting,” noting 16 rules had been repealed via the Congressional Review Act in 2025 [6] [4]. Legal and policy shops aligned with the administration say coordinated executive orders and OMB oversight give the president tools to accelerate deregulation across agencies [7] [8].
3. Legal and institutional constraints: courts and statutes push back
Legal analysts caution that agencies cannot simply erase regulations wholesale. Scholarship and legal commentary note the Supreme Court and administrative-law precedents — including recent decisions reaffirming the duty of reasoned decision-making and limits on agency rollback — mean many repeal attempts will face a tough arbitrary-and-capricious test and litigation [3]. Empirical reviews of the first term found low success rates defending repeals in court, and subsequent reporting documents hundreds of judicial stays or rulings that have slowed the administration’s actions [3] [9].
4. Implementation realities: accounting, definitions, and agency capacity
Observers including regulatory-policy experts argue the 10-for-1 metric is likely to become a bookkeeping exercise: differing definitions of “regulation” and counting guidance documents can make targets achievable on paper without materially shrinking the stock of enforceable rules [5]. Agencies must also devote staff time to identify, justify, and defend repeals — an administrative burden that could slow other work — and independent agencies may pose special procedural or legal challenges [7] [5].
5. Policy areas and examples: environment, labor, finance
Reporting in November 2025 highlights concrete deregulatory proposals and rollbacks in environmental policy, such as moves to change Clean Water and Endangered Species protections, that could “reshape U.S. environmental policy for years” if finalized and sustained in court [10]. Financial-sector commentary expects more deregulatory pressure but notes many banking rules derive from statutes that require Congress to change, so large legislative rewrites are unlikely and litigation or limited administrative changes are the likelier pathway [11].
6. Political context and strategic goals
The deregulatory push dovetails with broader political aims: the administration frames rollbacks as economic relief and pro-growth policy ahead of contested midterms and ongoing messaging to keep Congressional allies aligned [12]. Conservative governance plans and networks (e.g., Project 2025 themes) overlap with many executive actions, though reporting notes some differences between the administration’s actions and outside blueprints [13].
7. Competing narratives and what to watch next
Supporters emphasize cost savings, reduced burdens, and restored agency discretion over enforcement; critics emphasize environmental, consumer, and worker protections at risk and the likelihood of protracted litigation [6] [3]. Key indicators to monitor are: [14] how agencies define and count repeals; [15] the number of rules actually removed versus guidance rescinded; [16] judicial outcomes in high-profile litigation; and [17] whether Congress uses tools like the Congressional Review Act to supplement executive action [1] [4] [3].
Limitations: available sources do not provide a comprehensive tally of every rule affected through November 2025, and detailed cost-benefit outcomes for each repeal are not uniformly published in the materials cited (not found in current reporting).