Trump 2.0 Regulatory Executive Orders

Earlier this year, the EDUCAUSE Policy team examined the potential impact of the incoming Trump administration on the higher education IT policy landscape, highlighting several key regulatory issues affecting EDUCAUSE members, including web and mobile app accessibility, cyber incident reporting, and cybersecurity requirements for federal student aid data. At the time, we noted that many of these actions faced an uncertain future given the change in administration.^Footnote1

We are just over two months into the second Trump administration, and the status of some of these key regulations remains largely unchanged. However, since his inauguration, President Trump has issued several executive orders (EOs) with implications for the regulatory process. These EOs could provide some clues about where federal agencies might focus their efforts in the coming months. Below is a summary of the EOs.

• Regulatory Freeze Pending Review: In one of his first executive actions issued on January 20, President Trump ordered all agencies to place any pending regulations on hold and cease issuing any new proposed rules until an agency official appointed by the President reviews and approves the policy. The EO also urged agencies to "consider postponing for 60 days . . . the effective date for any rules that have been published in the Federal Register, or any rules that have been issued in any manner but have not taken effect, for the purpose of reviewing any questions of fact, law, and policy that the rules may raise." While the EO does not mandate that agencies postpone the effective date of any finalized rules, this provision in the EO suggests that they do so. It also suggests that agencies consider opening a new public comment period for such actions.^Footnote2
• Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation: Arguing that federal regulations impose "massive costs on the lives of millions of Americans," create "a substantial restraint on . . . economic growth and ability to build and innovate," and hamper "global competitiveness," President Trump's "ten-for-one" EO requires agencies to identify ten existing regulations to eliminate each time they propose a new regulation. The EO—issued on January 31—also requires the incremental cost of all new regulations finalized in fiscal year 2025 to be "significantly less than zero."^Footnote3 During his first term, President Trump issued a "two-for-one" EO to scale back on regulations. That EO required the incremental costs of all new regulations to be "no greater than zero."^Footnote4 The differences between that EO and the ten-for-one EO make clear that the second Trump administration is taking a more aggressive approach to reducing the federal regulatory footprint than it did during President Trump's first term in office.
• Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies: On February 18, President Trump issued an EO in which the White House asserts significant control over independent agencies, such as the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), Security and Exchange Commission (SEC), Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Previously, presidents would nominate agency members or commissioners and appoint chairs for these agencies, but the agencies largely operated outside direct White House control. Among other things, this EO requires independent regulatory agency chairmen to consult regularly with the director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the White House Domestic Policy Council, and the White House Economic Council and coordinate their agency policies and priorities with these entities. Additionally, the EO requires the director of OMB to "establish performance standards and management objectives for independent agency heads" and review agency activity to ensure alignment with the President's policies and priorities. Moreover, the EO states that the "President and the Attorney General's opinions on questions of law are controlling on all employees in the conduct of their official duties" and prohibits employees of the executive branch from "advancing an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that contravenes the President or the Attorney General's opinion on a matter of law, including but not limited to the issuance of regulations, guidance, and positions advanced in litigation, unless authorized to do so by the President or in writing by the Attorney General."^Footnote5 This EO represents a significant change to long-established operations between the White House and independent agencies. As such, the ultimate impact of the order is largely unknown at this time.
• Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's "Department of Government Efficiency" (DOGE) Deregulatory Initiative: The day after issuing the independent agency EO, President Trump issued another EO designed to target and eliminate legacy regulations. This EO directs all agencies to conduct a review of all regulations under their jurisdiction within sixty days to identify those that should be rescinded or modified, based on a number of criteria set forth in the EO. The EO also directs agencies to deprioritize, and in some cases, terminate, enforcement activity for identified regulations. Moreover, it directs agency heads to consult with their DOGE team leads on any potential new regulatory activity.^Footnote6 Relative to the regulatory freeze EO, this directive takes a wider approach to deregulation by targeting any existing regulation under an agency's jurisdiction as ripe for elimination.

The ultimate impact of these EOs remains to be seen and will depend on the individual actions of agencies as well as rulings in any legal challenges that are pending throughout the court system.^Footnote7 EDUCAUSE will keep members apprised of any relevant updates.

Notes

1. Kathryn Branson, "What the Election Results Mean for Higher Education IT Policy," EDUCAUSE Review, January 14, 2025 Jump back to footnote 1 in the text.↩
2. Memorandum of January 20, 2025, "Regulatory Freeze Pending Review," Federal Register 90, no. 17, (January 20, 2025): 8249. Jump back to footnote 2 in the text.↩
3. Executive Order No. 14192 of January 31, 2025, "Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation," Federal Register 90, no. 24 (February 6, 2025). Jump back to footnote 3 in the text.↩
4. Executive Order 13771 of January 30, 2017, "Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs," Federal Register 82, no. 22 (January 30, 2017). Jump back to footnote 4 in the text.↩
5. Executive Order 14215 of February 18, 2025, "Ensuring Accountability of All Agencies," Federal Register 90, no. 35 (February 24, 2025): 10447. Jump back to footnote 5 in the text.↩
6. Executive Order 14219 of February 19, 2025, "Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's 'Department of Government Efficiency' Deregulatory Initiative," Federal Register 90, no. 36 (February 25, 2025): 10583). Specifically, the EO directs agencies to categorize regulations and determine which regulations (1) are unconstitutional or raise constitutional difficulties such as exceeding scope of the power vested in the Federal Government by the constitution; (2) are based on unlawful delegations of legislative power; (3) are based on anything other than the best reading of the underlying statutory authority; (4) implicate matters of social, political, or economic significance that are not authorized by clear statutory authority; (5) impose significant costs upon private parties that are not outweighed by public benefits; (6) harm the national interest by significantly and unjustifiably impeding technological innovation, infrastructure development, disaster response, inflation reduction, research and development, economic development, energy production, land use, and foreign policy objectives; and (7) impose undue burdens on small business and impede private enterprise and entrepreneurship. Jump back to footnote 6 in the text.↩
7. Lawfare, "Trump Administration Litigation Tracker," The Lawfare Institute, updated April 1, 2025. Jump back to footnote 7 in the text.↩

Kathryn Branson is a Partner at Ulman Public Policy.