Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Launches Massive 10-to-1 Deregulation Initiative

TLDR

This executive order referenced by this “fact sheet” mandates federal agencies eliminate ten existing regulations for every new one introduced, targeting Biden-era regulations. It expands Trump’s previous 2-for-1 policy, claims to address “$1.7 trillion” in regulatory burdens, and requires net regulatory costs to fall “significantly below zero” in FY2025. The policy faces implementation challenges including legal conflicts, resource constraints, and concerns about arbitrary elimination of important regulations.

This is a “fact sheet” for President Trump’s recent executive order mandating a 10-for-1 regulatory repeal ratio, requiring federal agencies to eliminate ten existing regulations for every new one introduced. This policy builds on his previous 2-for-1 regulatory reduction effort from his first term and specifically targets Biden-era regulations cited as contributing to a “$1.7 trillion burden” on Americans. While framed as economic relief, the order raises significant implementation challenges and policy concerns.

Key Components of the Executive Order

1. 10-for-1 Regulatory Elimination Mandate Agencies must identify at least ten rules to repeal before issuing any new regulation, with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) standardizing cost measurement. The order requires net regulatory costs to fall “significantly below zero” in FY2025.

2. Critique of Biden-Era Regulations The administration claims Biden-era rules:

• Imposed $1.7 trillion in cumulative costs
• Increased energy prices
• Stifled small businesses and innovation

3. Expansion of Previous Success Metrics The order references Trump’s first-term achievement of removing 5.5 regulations for each new one enacted, surpassing the original 2-for-1 goal.

Critical Analysis

Arbitrary Numerical Targets

The 10-for-1 ratio creates a perverse incentive to prioritize quantity over quality:

• Risk of repealing critical public safety/environmental rules to meet quotas
• Disproportionate impact on complex, sector-specific regulations requiring technical expertise
• No mechanism to assess cumulative impacts of repealed regulations

Cost-Benefit Calculation Flaws

The OMB’s standardized cost metric:

• Likely undervalues long-term regulatory benefits (e.g., pollution reduction, consumer protections)
• Fails to account for cost-shifting to states/local governments
• Ignores preventive savings (e.g., workplace safety rules reducing healthcare costs)

Historical Context Considerations

While the previous 2-for-1 policy removed 5.5 regulations per new rule:

• Many repealed rules were obsolete or duplicative
• Major public health/environmental protections remained intact
• No equivalent study demonstrates feasibility of 10-for-1 scale

Economic Impact Projections

Contrary to claims about reducing living costs:

• Deregulation could increase systemic risks (e.g., financial sector)
• Energy price reductions might come at environmental/health costs
• Small business burdens often stem from compliance complexity, not regulation quantity

Implementation Challenges

1. Legal Conflicts: Statutory mandates requiring new regulations (e.g., Clean Air Act updates) could clash with repeal requirements.
2. Resource Strain: Agencies lack staffing to conduct 10x regulatory analyses simultaneously.
3. Rule Prioritization: Low-impact “easy targets” might be repealed first, preserving problematic but politically sensitive rules.

This order refereced by the fact sheet represents a dramatic escalation of deregulatory policy that substitutes measurable outcomes for ideological arithmetic. While reducing bureaucratic redundancy has merit, the rigid 10-for-1 framework risks eliminating protections with disproportionate public benefits relative to their administrative burdens.