Tag Archives: united states

Trump Administration deregulatory push yields industry wish list for rule rollbacks

By Erin Caddell, Anchor Advisors LLC – A GK Strategy partner firm

Amidst the mile-a-minute pace of activity in the Trump Administration’s first six months, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)’s April 11th posting of Federal Register document 2025-06316, “Request for Information: Deregulation” did not exactly make for scintillating tabloid reading. Yet the effort initiated by OMB’s memo is likely to spark substantial regulatory activity by a number of federal agencies starting this fall and into the remainder of Trump’s current term that will be highly impactful across a range of industries in the U.S.

OMB’s request for information (RFI) was prepared in response to an Executive Order signed by President Trump on April 9th to repeal “[u]nlawful, unnecessary and onerous regulations”. The order notes that the U.S. Supreme Court has issued a number of rulings in recent years limiting the power of federal agencies, and asks commenters to identify regulations now inconsistent with these decisions.

Companies and their trade associations were only too happy to respond to OMB’s request. The RFI received nearly 8,500 comments during the 30-day window (though some were from individuals calling for caution against moving too quickly to deregulate). OMB and federal agencies will likely begin the process of repealing or amending certain rules cited in the comments starting this fall. Importantly, the executive order notes that agencies may attempt to rescind the rules in question without the traditional notice-and-comment period required for formal rulemaking, which can add months if not years to the process. The order cites a provision in the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) providing a “good cause” exemption to traditional rulemaking requirements if the original rule is “impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest.” Any attempts to circumvent the rulemaking process would be met immediately by legal challenges (interestingly, the Mortgage Bankers Association, an influential trade association, argued that agencies should continue to utilize the notice-and-comment process, as abandoning this function could rob industry with a key means of providing input). But even if ultimately overturned, companies would have to make accommodations to assume a proposed repeal could become effective, particularly if intermediate courts support the Administration.

So what does Corporate America hope to deregulate? Anchor reviewed a representative sample of comment letters submitted by trade associations representing a range of industries. We summarize in the table below recommendations from six of these comments. Taken together, the missives describe their authors’ frustrations with the blizzard of rulemaking under the Biden Administration and cite hundreds of regulations they believe should be repealed or revised in the name of spurring economic growth and reducing the administrative burden.

Select Industry Association Responses to OMB Deregulation Request for Input (RFI)

Organization Rule cited Agency(s) Year Commenter’s rationale
Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) Adoption of energy efficiency standards for new construction of HUD- and USDA-financed housing HUD, USDA 2024 Will drive up costs for new single-family and multi-family construction; 30 states still operating under prior standard enacted in 2009; shortage of inspectors trained on new standard.
National Multifamily Housing Council/National Apartment Association Floodplain management and protection of wetlands HUD 2024 Imposes substantial compliance costs on homeowners without robust data on actual risk reduction benefits nationwide.
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation Rule requiring minimum of two crew members on most US freight and passenger train journeys. Federal Railroad Administration 2024 Lacks foundation in safety data; is driven by labor-union pressures; automated braking systems and other technological advances intended to mitigate accidents caused by human error.
American Petroleum Institute (API) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for Particulate Matter EPA 2024 In 2024, EPA mandated a lowering of maximum air particulate matter – a measure of air quality – of no more than 9.0 micrograms per cubic meter vs. 12.0 previously. API argues no new scientific evidence had emerged to warrant such a reduction. API argues the new standard will limit economic growth. The group supports revising, not repealing the rule.
Small Business Low Risk Coalition (group of manufacturing/industrial trade associations) Multi-sector general permit rules for stormwater discharge from industrial facilities EPA 2021 Argues 2021 version of standard was issued in overly hasty fashion relative to the 2015 version, which received lengthy multiagency review. The group argues that the 2021 permit rules added costly, unnecessary analytical monitoring requirements for many industries.
American Hospital Association (AHA) Remove telehealth originating and geographic site restrictions within the Medicare program. CMS Various Currently, Medicare patients in urban or suburban areas do not have the same access to telehealth services covered by Medicare as those in rural areas; in other cases patients must be in a clinical setting to receive telehealth services, which defeats their purpose.

Source: Regulations.gov

What does this mean for investors and companies? The OMB request for information and its many industry responses are a sign that deregulation – obscured thus far by the trade war, the immigration crackdown and the many controversies that follow the current Administration – will nonetheless be a key theme for Trump’s second term. The fall Unified Regulatory Agenda, a document published by presidential Administrations twice a year that details each federal agency’s priorities for the coming 12 months, will provide clues as to how the Administration has translated OMB’s fact-finding mission into agency priorities.

Given the inclination of Trump, Vought and those around them in the Administration, OMB is likely to push ahead with many of the deregulatory recommendations put forth in the comment letters. Opponents will attempt to counter these efforts through the courts, with their allies in Congress, and by attempting to influence public opinion. But as with many other aspects of the Trump Administration, critics will face the challenge of fighting many battles at once.

History also shows that deregulation can be a double-edged sword for the private sector. The Global Financial Crisis of 2007-08, which followed a long period of loosened of the U.S. financial services industry, is the most striking recent example. But more recent cases like the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank in spring 2023 demonstrate the dangers of lighter-touch regulation. In that case, rule changes reducing capital and liquidity requirements for banks of Silicon Valley’s size encouraged the firm to increase its risk profile, making the firm highly vulnerable to a rise in short-term interest rates. Companies must do more on their own to protect their businesses, customers and employees at times when the pendulum swings toward deregulation. Ethics committees, ombudsmen and similar compliance measures (Anchor and its partners can help with this!) can serve companies well at times like this when animal spirits are running high – on Wall Street as well as in Washington, D.C.

Tariff climbdown offers Trump an off ramp, but uncertainty remains

History repeats itself. An adage the US President and his team of advisers would do well to heed.

In 2022 the radical tax cutting budget announced by Liz Truss’ government sent yields on UK gilts spiralling out of control, with the 10-year gilt yield increasing by the largest amount in a single day since the 1990s. The Bank of England had to intervene with emergency bond purchases to prevent a collapse in the pension fund market.

This market crisis ultimately had profound political consequences, with Kwasi Kwarteng being removed as Chancellor after just 38 days in office, and the end of Liz Truss’s premiership following soon after, making her the shortest-serving Prime Minister in UK history at only 49 days.

The episode highlighted how sensitive financial markets can be to fiscal policy decisions, particularly when they raise concerns about a country’s debt sustainability or when policy changes are announced without adequate preparation or buy-in from the market.

We can look further back to understand the might of the bond market. President Clinton’s economic adviser, James Carville, said: “I used to think that if there was reincarnation, I wanted to come back as the President or the pope or as a .400 baseball hitter. But now I would want to come back as the bond market. You can intimidate everybody.” This has arguably proved to be the case for President Trump – despite trillions being wiped off the stock market, it was rising yields on US Treasury bonds that forced him to blink.

The President claims that the decision to pause the new reciprocal tariff regime for 90 days was the result of 75 countries contacting the White House to express willingness to negotiate trade deals. This narrative creates a potential blueprint for a further watering down of tariffs once the pause ends. Trump has created some leeway to say that after successful negotiations countries will no longer be “ripping off” the United States and will point to his tariffs as a masterstroke in political and economic diplomacy. This exit strategy, however, may come too late to repair the damage done to the international economic and geopolitical order that Trump’s approach is likely to leave in its wake.

This short reprieve, as it may still turn out to be, is creating major issues for the global economy, with financial markets in a state of flux trying to pre-empt and then respond to Trump’s next move. The political and economic uncertainty of the next three months will be difficult to navigate, particularly for multinational businesses with complex supply chains.

UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has already acknowledged that fixating on whether the UK can negotiate the removal of its own 10% tariff is almost irrelevant, given the potentially more serious impacts the UK could face in the event of a global economic slowdown. A trade war between the two biggest global economies – the United States and China – would have far reaching implications that no country would be able to insulate itself from. The Bank of England has already warned that supply chain disruptions would be expected to weigh heavy on UK economic activity.

This all creates a big headache for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves. Having had to make some politically unpopular decisions in recent week to restore the £9billion of fiscal headroom she identified in the autumn budget in October, she could once again find this headroom wiped out as UK growth is revised down. There is already speculation about HM Treasury’s potential response. Tax rises, more spending cuts, or additional borrowing are the options, and none of them are politically palatable.

The global economic challenges have already had an impact on the machinery of government. The Prime Minister has removed two key people from the Number 10 policy unit as part of efforts for the government to speed up economic growth and policy delivery. In the coming weeks it is likely the government will bring forward the publication of the government’s Industrial Strategy (originally scheduled for publication alongside the Spending Review in June) to demonstrate that the UK is open to business and ripe for international investment. The government has also shown a willingness to support industries that are exposed to tariffs.  In anticipation of tariffs coming into effect, Starmer announced a watering down of regulations relating to electric vehicle sales targets to provide manufacturers with some breathing space. We are likely to see additional measures announced as the government continues its consultation with business on the impacts of higher tariffs, and what the UK’s response should be.

The government is facing a significant challenge to its central mission to grow the economy and raise living standards. A renewed emphasis to go further and faster in the delivery of its reform agenda, does, despite the doom and gloom, offer an opportunity for businesses. Policymakers are firmly in listening mode. Businesses that can offer solutions to the economic pressures the government is facing, as well as a commitment to investing in the UK, will find a welcoming ear.

The next few months will undoubtedly be challenging and uncertain. However, a renewed collaboration between the public and private sector to navigate these turbulent times has the potential to offer a pathway for the UK to position itself as a top destination for investment and business growth.

Across the pond – Insights from our US partners

Mark Linton is a public affairs expert working with clients on US regulatory forecasting and scenario planning. He is a former senior appointee in the Obama Administration and a CoFounder of Hummingbird Advantage, a national public affairs consulting firm working with startups, investors, and established brands to help them win on their top causes.

Q: If you were a betting person, who would win the US election tomorrow? 

A: I would rather be Kamala Harris than Donald Trump. The Vice President has a higher overall ceiling of support among the electorate and a better field operation (to contact voters and get them to the polls). Having said that, the race is exceedingly close and it’s very possible Donald Trump could still win.  

Q: Which campaign do you think has received the largest donations from investors? 

A: America’s lax campaign finance laws make it incredibly hard to know this, given the proliferation of spending by outside political action committees (PACs) and interest groups, many of which have few disclosure requirements. Donald Trump has received a significant amount of dark money support including from major VC players who back crypto.   

Q: What does each candidate mean for international investment into the US? 

A: The care economy, healthcare: If Kamala Harris is elected and Democrats control both chambers of Congress, we would expect to see a concerted push to enact paid family and medical leave, an area where the U.S. lags compared to most European countries. Vice President Harris has also proposed expanding subsidies to help cover health care costs and in general strengthening the Affordable Care Act. 

Renewable Energy: Even if Donald Trump is elected, it will be hard – and politically unpopular – to claw back the billions of dollars that have flowed to states for renewables and climate adaptation through the recently passed infrastructure law (the Inflation Reduction Act). We’d expect to continue to see interest in clean energy, upgrades to the nation’s grid, and a focus on new technologies ranging from microgrids to carbon capture and removal.   

Q: What is the most favourable election outcome for US investment into the UK? 

A: Kamala Harris will bring a high degree of stability and competence to the White House. For that reason, many business leaders have privately signalled their preference for her as America’s next president. By contrast, most analysts predict a period of heightened political instability at home and abroad if Donald Trump is elected. He has pledged to start a trade war and weaken American alliances e.g., NATO, that undergird much of the western international economic order. A second Trump presidency would also lead to sustained domestic unrest, including potentially general strikes depending on the severity and reach of any unconstitutional orders he gives to the military and federal law enforcement agencies.    

Q: Top three sectors which will benefit from Trump and why? 

 A: This depends on his early executive actions, of course, but it’s reasonable to expect that crypto, oil & gas, and defence sectors will do well.  

Q: Top three sectors which will benefit from Harris and why? 

A: Health care, renewables and housing are three sectors that will potentially benefit from existing and new subsidies and tax credits that a Harris administration would likely pursue.  

Q: Most likely candidate to want to negotiate a full fat trade deal with the UK? 

A: Both parties are focused on striking trade deals that favour American workers and, in the case of Kamala Harris, include robust environmental and labour protections. Add in Donald Trump’s threat to start a trade war and apply across-the-board tariffs, and a full fat trade deal with the UK seems unlikely in the near term.  

Q: If Trump is elected, how might US protectionism evolve in the next four years?  

A: It will get worse – if we take Donald Trump at his word to pursue a maximally protectionist set of trade deals and apply across the board tariffs.  

Q: If Harris is elected, how might economic policy diverge from that of Biden and the Inflation Reduction Act? 

A: Depending on the makeup of the next Congress, we’d expect to see new gains for the housing and healthcare sectors, a boost in consumer spending, and, potentially, new regulations in the tech space.  

Q: What happens to the Republican Party if they lose in November? Should fears of civil unrest be taken seriously? 

A: Since the Big Lie in 2020, most elected Republicans have unfortunately embraced baseless lies about the integrity of the US election system, despite it being the most secure and transparent in the world. We know that Donald Trump will not go quietly into the night if he loses. The real question will be how far along elected Republican officials follow him, especially if protests become violent. The best scenario is that an electoral blow against political extremism resets some of the political incentives – in the immediate and longer term – and we begin to see Republican officials join many other voices in calling for calm and support for the rule of law. It will not be surprising if at least some investors and business leaders also add their voices to urging calm.  

Q: Who are the future Democrat heavy weights should Harris lose?   

A: The Democratic Party has no shortage of talent; from current Biden administration cabinet officials to members of Congress and successful Governors. Kamala Harris will have a deep bench to draw from for her cabinet if she is elected president. If she falls short, the Vice President is in good company with an array of incredibly gifted Democratic leaders, many of whom will presumably decide to run for president in four years.   

Q: How will the makeup of the Congress impact policymaking under the next President? What will be the key political priorities and barriers? 

A: If both chambers switch – Democrats take the House while Republicans take the Senate, which is a distinct possibility, the question becomes: which major policy areas can garner enough bipartisan support to compel members to pass legislation? Some areas where the political incentives potentially align for bipartisan legislation include the regulation of social media platforms (and possibly AI); some form of paid family leave; defence and some foreign aid.  In addition, if Congress doesn’t renew the Farm Bill soon after the election (in a “lame duck” session of Congress), then the next Congress will have to, regardless of which party controls each chamber.