aware

The 1-Minute Brief

What: Executive Order 14192, "Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation," mandates that for every new federal regulation an agency proposes, it must identify at least ten existing regulations for elimination.

Money: The order requires that the total cost of all new regulations for fiscal year 2025 be "significantly less than zero." This is to be achieved by offsetting the costs of new rules with the savings from repealed rules, as determined by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

Your Impact: The most likely direct effect on an average American would be a reduction in consumer, environmental, and workplace protections, as agencies would be pressured to remove numerous existing rules to enact any new ones.

Status: Issued as an Executive Order on January 31, 2025. It was scheduled for publication in the Federal Register on February 6, 2025.

What's Actually in the Bill

Executive Order 14192 establishes a strict "regulatory budget" for federal agencies. Its core function is to dramatically reduce the overall number of federal regulations and their associated costs on the private sector. The order compels executive departments and agencies to follow a "ten-for-one" rule: for each new regulation they wish to implement, they must first identify at least ten existing regulations to repeal.

Core Provisions:

Ten-for-One Repeal: Whenever an agency proposes a new regulation, it must identify at least 10 existing regulations to be repealed. [Sec. 3(a)]
Cost Offset: For fiscal year 2025, the total incremental cost of all new regulations must be "significantly less than zero." Any new costs from new rules must be offset by the elimination of costs from the repealed regulations. [Sec. 3(b), 3(c)]
OMB Control: The Director of the Office of Management and Budget is given significant authority to oversee this process, including setting annual cost allowances for each agency and approving which regulations can be issued. [Sec. 4(d)]
Expanded Definition of "Regulation": The order applies to a broad range of agency actions, including guidance documents, policy statements, and memoranda, not just formal rules passed under the Administrative Procedure Act. [Sec. 5]
Reinstatement of Prior Policies: The order revokes the November 2023 version of OMB Circular A-4 (which guides how agencies conduct cost-benefit analysis) and reinstates the 2003 version. [Sec. 6(b)]

Stated Purpose (from the Sponsors):

The order states that its purpose is to reduce the "ever-expanding morass of complicated Federal regulation" which it claims imposes massive costs, restrains economic growth, and hampers global competitiveness. [Sec. 1]

To significantly reduce the private expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations. [Sec. 1]
To secure America's economic prosperity and national security. [Sec. 1]
To ensure the cost of planned regulations is responsibly managed and controlled through a rigorous regulatory budgeting process. [Sec. 1]

Key Facts:

Affected Sectors: Potentially all sectors of the economy, particularly those heavily regulated, such as Healthcare, Environment, Finance, Technology, and Labor.
Timeline: The "ten-for-one" rule and the negative cost cap are effective for Fiscal Year 2025. The OMB Director will set future annual cost allowances for agencies. [Sec. 3(b), 4(d)]
Scope: The order applies to all executive departments and agencies but exempts regulations related to military, national security, homeland security, foreign affairs, or immigration functions, as well as those related to agency organization or personnel. [Sec. 5(a), 5(b)]

The Backstory: How We Got Here

Timeline of Events:

The Rise of the Regulatory State (Early-to-Mid 20th Century):

Following the Great Depression, President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal greatly expanded the role of federal agencies in regulating the economy to protect consumers and ensure stability. This era established the foundation of the modern federal regulatory system. In 1946, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) was passed as a compromise to standardize how agencies create and issue regulations.

The First Wave of Deregulation (1970s-1980s):

Beginning in the 1970s, a bipartisan consensus emerged that some economic regulations were stifling competition and hurting consumers. This led to significant deregulation in industries like airlines, trucking, and telecommunications under both Democratic and Republican administrations. Concurrently, a new wave of "social regulation" focused on health, safety, and the environment began, leading to the creation of agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

The "Two-for-One" Precedent (2017-2021):

In January 2017, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 13771, which introduced a "two-for-one" requirement for regulations. That order mandated that for every new regulation issued, two must be identified for repeal, and it also established a regulatory cost cap. This was a significant departure from previous regulatory review processes. E.O. 13771 was immediately challenged in court by public interest groups who argued it was unconstitutional and forced agencies to violate their statutory duties. However, the case was ultimately dismissed after a court found the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue. E.O. 13771 was rescinded by President Joe Biden on his first day in office in 2021.

Why Now? The Political Calculus:

A More Aggressive Approach: This executive order represents a significant escalation of the "two-for-one" policy, moving to a "ten-for-one" requirement. This signals a commitment to a much more aggressive deregulatory agenda.
Economic Pressures: The order is framed as a necessary step to "unleash prosperity" and combat economic stagnation, suggesting that the administration sees deregulation as a primary tool for economic growth. [Sec. 1]
Bypassing Congress: Issuing an executive order allows the administration to implement this policy without needing to pass legislation through a potentially divided Congress.

Your Real-World Impact

The Direct Answer: This order directly affects industries and specific groups of Americans who benefit from federal protections, rather than the general population all at once.

What Could Change for You:

Potential Benefits:

For business owners, particularly in heavily regulated industries, this could lead to lower compliance costs and fewer bureaucratic hurdles.
Proponents argue this could spur innovation and economic growth by freeing up capital that would otherwise be spent on regulatory compliance.

Possible Disruptions or Costs:

Short-term (1-2 years):

Agencies may halt or delay issuing new, necessary regulations—even those with significant public benefits—due to the difficulty of finding ten existing rules to eliminate.
This could create uncertainty for industries and the public about the status of health, safety, and environmental protections.

Long-term:

Permanent elimination of long-standing regulations could weaken consumer protections, environmental safeguards, and workplace safety standards.
The focus on eliminating costs without a corresponding analysis of the benefits that are lost could lead to negative public health and safety outcomes.

Who's Most Affected:

Primary Groups:

Industries: Sectors like energy, finance, manufacturing, and agriculture that face significant federal regulation.
Workers: Individuals in hazardous industries whose safety standards could be rolled back.
Consumers: People who rely on federal standards for product safety, food quality, and financial protection.
Environmental Communities: Areas affected by pollution where environmental regulations could be weakened.

Secondary Groups:

Federal Agency Employees: Their work will be redirected towards identifying rules for repeal rather than developing new protections.
State Governments: States may need to step in to regulate areas where the federal government has withdrawn.

Regional Impact:

Regions with significant industrial, mining, or agricultural activity may experience more pronounced effects from the rollback of environmental and workplace safety rules.

Bottom Line: While the order aims to reduce costs for businesses, it could shift risks to individuals by weakening the federal government's protective regulations across many aspects of daily life.

Where the Parties Stand

Republican Position: "Cutting Red Tape to Unleash the Economy"

Core Stance: Generally supports aggressive deregulation to reduce the burden on businesses and stimulate economic growth.

Their Arguments:

✓ Federal regulations are overly burdensome, costly, and hinder innovation and job creation. [Sec. 1]
✓ A "regulatory budget" is a necessary tool to control government overreach and ensure fiscal discipline.
✓ Reducing the number of regulations will make the U.S. more competitive globally. [Sec. 1]
⚠️ Some may have reservations about the specific "ten-for-one" ratio, preferring a different numerical target.

Legislative Strategy: To defend the executive order from legal challenges and highlight any resulting economic benefits. Fourteen Republican-led states filed a brief in support of the similar E.O. 13771.

Democratic Position: "Protecting People Over Profits"

Core Stance: Generally opposes broad, arbitrary deregulation, arguing that it undermines crucial public protections for health, safety, and the environment.

Their Arguments:

✓ The government should periodically review and update regulations to ensure they are effective.
⚠️ A rigid "ten-for-one" ratio is arbitrary and forces agencies to make trade-offs that could harm the public.
✗ This approach ignores the benefits of regulations and could force the repeal of rules that save lives, protect the environment, and ensure a stable economy.

Legislative Strategy: To challenge the executive order in court, arguing it exceeds presidential authority and violates the Administrative Procedure Act. They would also likely conduct oversight hearings to scrutinize the implementation of the order.

Constitutional Check

The Verdict: ⚠️ Questionable

Basis of Authority:

The order cites the President's authority under the Constitution and the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921. Proponents would argue this falls under the President's executive power to manage the agencies and ensure the faithful execution of laws.

U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 3 (Take Care Clause): "[The President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed..."

Constitutional Implications:

Separation of Powers: The core legal question is whether the President is unconstitutionally intruding on legislative power. Critics argue that Congress, through specific statutes, grants agencies the authority to regulate. This order, they contend, forces agencies to violate those statutes by requiring them to repeal beneficial regulations for reasons unrelated to the goals of the underlying laws.

Precedent: Lawsuits against the similar "two-for-one" Executive Order 13771 were filed by groups like Public Citizen and the Natural Resources Defense Council. The cases were ultimately dismissed, not on the merits, but because the courts found the plaintiffs could not demonstrate a specific, concrete injury sufficient to give them legal standing to sue. This means the core constitutional questions were never fully resolved by the courts.

Federalism: While not a direct federalism issue, large-scale federal deregulation could pressure states to create their own regulations to fill the void, potentially leading to a patchwork of differing state-level rules.

Potential Legal Challenges:

Legal challenges are almost certain from environmental organizations, consumer advocacy groups, and labor unions. Their arguments will likely mirror those used against E.O. 13771:

The order forces agencies to act in an "arbitrary and capricious" manner, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.
It violates the Take Care Clause by preventing agencies from faithfully executing the laws as written by Congress.
It violates the separation of powers by allowing the President to effectively repeal laws passed by Congress through the regulatory process.

Your Action Options

TO SUPPORT THIS BILL

5-Minute Actions:

Call Your Rep/Senators: Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121. "I'm a constituent from [Your City/Town] and I urge [Rep./Sen. Name] to support Executive Order 14192 and the administration's efforts to cut burdensome regulations."
Contact the White House: Express your support directly through the White House comment line or website.

30-Minute Deep Dive:

Write a Detailed Email: Contact members of relevant oversight committees, like the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability or the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, explaining why you support this deregulatory agenda.
Join an Organization: Groups that have previously supported deregulation include business associations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers.

TO OPPOSE THIS BILL

5-Minute Actions:

Call Your Rep/Senators: Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121. "I'm a constituent from [Your City/Town] and I urge [Rep./Sen. Name] to oppose Executive Order 14192 and its harmful 'ten-for-one' mandate."

30-Minute Deep Dive:

Write a Letter to the Editor: Submit a letter to your local newspaper explaining how the repeal of specific federal protections (e.g., clean air rules, consumer financial protections) could harm your community.
Join an Organization: Advocacy groups that have previously fought against similar executive orders include Public Citizen, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and the Communications Workers of America. Civil rights organizations like the Legal Defense Fund and Lambda Legal have also challenged executive orders they view as harmful.