aware

The 1-Minute Brief

What: Executive Order 14267, "Reducing Anti-Competitive Regulatory Barriers," directs federal agencies to review existing regulations and identify those that stifle competition, create monopolies, or erect barriers for new businesses.

Money: There is no specific Congressional Budget Office (CBO) score or appropriation associated with this executive order, as it directs a review process rather than creating a new program. The financial impact will depend on which regulations are ultimately rescinded or modified.

Your Impact: The most likely direct effect on an average American could be changes in the prices and choices available for goods and services, as regulations affecting various industries are potentially altered or eliminated.

Status: Issued and published in the Federal Register on April 15, 2025.

What's Actually in the Bill

This executive order mandates a government-wide review to identify and eliminate federal regulations that hinder economic competition. It instructs the heads of all federal agencies to find rules that are anti-competitive and recommend them for removal or modification.

Core Provisions:

Agency Review: All federal agencies must review their regulations and identify those that create monopolies, create unnecessary barriers to entry, limit competition, impose undue licensing requirements, burden the government procurement process, or otherwise distort the free market.
70-Day Deadline: Within 70 days of the order (by June 18, 2025), agency heads must submit a list of these anti-competitive regulations to the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Attorney General. This list must include recommendations for rescission or modification.
Public Input: The FTC Chairman is required to issue a Request for Information (RFI) within 10 days to solicit public input on identifying such regulations. This RFI will remain open for 40 days.
Consolidated List: Within 90 days of receiving the agency lists, the FTC Chairman, in consultation with other officials, will provide a consolidated list of regulations recommended for change to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Regulatory Agenda: The OMB Director will then decide whether to incorporate these proposed changes into the Unified Regulatory Agenda, which is part of a broader deregulatory initiative.

Stated Purpose (from the Sponsors):

The order states its purpose is to eliminate regulations that "predetermine economic winners and losers" and "exclude new market entrants." The goal is to "revitalize the American economy" by removing rules that reduce competition, entrepreneurship, and innovation.

Key Facts:

Affected Sectors: The review is broad and could potentially affect any sector of the economy regulated by the federal government, including technology, healthcare, finance, and agriculture.
Timeline: The initial agency reviews and recommendations are mandated on a tight timeline of 70 to 90 days from the order's issuance on April 9, 2025.
Scope: This is a federal-level directive impacting all executive branch agencies, except for the Executive Office of the President.

The Backstory: How We Got Here

Timeline of Events:

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

Following the Great Depression, the New Deal expanded the role of the federal government in the economy, creating numerous agencies and regulations to oversee everything from banking to agriculture. This trend of increasing regulation continued for several decades.

The Deregulation Era (1970s-1990s):

Beginning in the 1970s, a bipartisan consensus emerged that some economic regulations were stifling growth. The Carter administration initiated deregulation in sectors like airlines and trucking. This trend accelerated under President Ronald Reagan, who issued Executive Order 12291 in 1981, mandating cost-benefit analysis for new regulations and giving the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) a powerful review role. In 1993, President Bill Clinton replaced Reagan's order with Executive Order 12866, which maintained the centralized review process under OIRA and the principle of weighing costs and benefits, and it remains a foundational document for regulatory review.

The Pendulum Swings (2000s-Present):

Subsequent administrations have continued to use executive orders to shape the regulatory landscape. The level of regulation has often fluctuated depending on the party in power, with Republican administrations generally favoring deregulation and Democratic administrations often pursuing new regulations in areas like environmental protection and financial services. Polling has shown a consistent partisan divide, with a majority of Republicans believing there is too much government regulation, while Democrats are more likely to see the current amount as appropriate or insufficient.

Why Now? The Political Calculus:

Fulfilling a Campaign Promise: The issuance of this executive order aligns with a common theme of recent Republican platforms: reducing the size and scope of the federal government and dismantling what they term the "administrative state."
Economic Concerns: The order is framed as a way to "revitalize the American economy" at a time of specific economic pressures, aiming to boost competition and innovation as a remedy.
Use of Executive Power: Like previous presidents, the current administration is using its executive authority to direct the actions of federal agencies to achieve its policy goals without needing to pass new legislation through Congress.

Your Real-World Impact

The Direct Answer: This directly affects specific industries and businesses that operate under heavy federal regulation, with the potential for indirect effects on all Americans through changes in prices, services, and consumer protections.

What Could Change for You:

Potential Benefits:

Lower Prices: Increased competition in industries like telecommunications, pharmaceuticals, or financial services could lead to lower prices for consumers.
More Choices: The removal of barriers to entry could allow new companies to emerge, offering consumers a wider variety of products and services.
Innovation: A less restrictive regulatory environment could spur innovation as companies have more freedom to experiment with new business models and technologies.

Possible Disruptions or Costs:

Short-term (1-2 years):

Market Instability: Rapid deregulation could lead to instability in certain markets as companies adjust to new rules.
Reduced Protections: The rescission of regulations could weaken consumer, environmental, or worker safety protections that were the original purpose of the rules.

Long-term:

Consolidation Concerns: While the stated goal is to increase competition, some critics of deregulation argue that it can sometimes lead to market consolidation if larger, more established players are better able to navigate a less regulated environment.
Changes in Service Quality: Depending on the regulations removed, the quality or reliability of some services could change.

Who's Most Affected:

Primary Groups:

Businesses in highly regulated industries (e.g., finance, energy, healthcare, tech).
Entrepreneurs and startups who may find it easier to enter new markets.
Federal agency employees tasked with conducting the reviews.

Secondary Groups:

Consumers, who will experience the downstream effects of changes in competition and regulation.
Investors, whose holdings may be impacted by regulatory shifts.
Lobbying and advocacy groups focused on specific regulatory issues.

Regional Impact: The impact will not be uniform and will depend on the concentration of specific industries in different regions of the country.

Bottom Line: This executive order sets in motion a process that could fundamentally reshape the rules for many parts of the U.S. economy, potentially leading to more innovation and lower prices, but also carrying the risk of reduced consumer and environmental protections.

Where the Parties Stand

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

Core Stance: Republicans generally support this executive order as a necessary step to reduce burdensome government overreach and promote free-market principles.

Their Arguments:

✓ Federal regulations stifle innovation, kill jobs, and impose unnecessary costs on businesses.
✓ Reducing barriers to entry will increase competition, leading to lower prices and more choices for consumers.
✓ The executive branch has a duty to review and eliminate outdated and counterproductive rules.

Legislative Strategy: Supporting the executive order's implementation and using congressional oversight to ensure agencies comply with the directive to deregulate.

Democratic Position: "A Race to the Bottom that Endangers Americans"

Core Stance: Democrats are generally critical of broad, anti-regulatory initiatives, arguing they prioritize corporate interests over public safety and welfare.

Their Arguments:

✓ Many regulations exist for a reason: to protect consumers from predatory practices, ensure financial stability, and safeguard the environment.
⚠️ A rushed, top-down review process could eliminate crucial protections without adequate analysis or public input, which is a key component of the Administrative Procedure Act.
✗ This order could be a pretext to gut regulations favored by political opponents, regardless of their actual competitive impact.

Legislative Strategy: Pushing back against the broad deregulatory push, potentially through congressional hearings, public statements, and preparing for legal challenges to the eventual rescission of specific rules.

Constitutional Check

The Verdict: ✓ Constitutional

Basis of Authority:

The President's authority to issue such an order stems from Article II of the U.S. Constitution, which grants the President broad "executive Power" and the responsibility to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."

Constitutional Implications:

Executive Power: This order is generally seen as a valid exercise of the President's power to manage the operations of the federal government's executive branch and direct how agencies carry out their duties.
Precedent: Every president since George Washington has issued executive orders. Modern presidents have frequently used them to direct regulatory policy, with E.O. 12866 serving as a key precedent for centralized regulatory review.
Federalism: This order directs federal agencies and does not directly overstep into powers reserved for the states.

Potential Legal Challenges:

While the executive order itself is constitutional, the implementation of it could face legal challenges. Any final rule change (rescinding or modifying a regulation) must still comply with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

Groups affected by the removal of a specific regulation could sue the responsible agency, arguing the decision to rescind the rule was "arbitrary and capricious." To defend against this, the agency would have to show a rational connection between the facts and its decision to deregulate, demonstrating that it considered all important aspects of the problem.

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 support Executive Order 14267's goal of reducing anti-competitive regulations. I urge [Rep./Sen. Name] to support its full implementation."

30-Minute Deep Dive:

Submit Public Comments: Look for the Request for Information (RFI) that will be issued by the Federal Trade Commission. Submit specific examples of regulations you believe are anti-competitive.
Join an Organization: [List of advocacy groups supporting the bill.]

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 am concerned that Executive Order 14267 could eliminate important consumer protections. I urge [Rep./Sen. Name] to conduct strong oversight of this process."

30-Minute Deep Dive:

Write a Letter to the Editor: Explain to your local newspaper why you believe specific regulations are important and should not be eliminated.
Join an Organization: [List of advocacy groups opposing the bill.]