Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Restores Common Sense to Federal Procurement

TLDR

This is a “fact” sheet for an executive order that aims to simplify the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) system by removing all but statutory or essential provisions from the 2,000+ page document. While the EO presents this as reducing barriers for businesses working with government, critics note that: 1) the transition may temporarily increase complexity, 2) the FAR isn’t the only barrier to government contracts, 3) simplification could reduce important oversight protections, 4) the 10-to-1 deregulation approach risks eliminating valuable rules, and 5) claims about commercial solutions and cost savings remain unverified or disputed.

This “fact” sheet outlines an executive order aimed at simplifying the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) system. The order directs a streamlining of the 2,000+ page FAR to contain only provisions required by statute or considered essential. It also mentions interim guidance, potential regulatory sunset provisions, and requirements for agency alignment with the streamlined FAR.

Claim: The executive order will simplify and streamline the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), removing all but statutory or essential provisions.

• The EO does direct a major overhaul of the FAR, aiming to remove non-statutory and non-essential rules. However, the process of determining what is “essential” is complex and subjective. The FAR exists to ensure transparency, fairness, and competition in federal procurement. Many provisions, while not strictly required by statute, have been added to address specific risks, promote competition, or prevent fraud and abuse. Wholesale removal risks unintended consequences, such as reduced oversight or increased vulnerability to waste and abuse.
• The EO mandates interim guidance and a phased approach, but during this transition, contractors and agencies may face confusion and inconsistent requirements, as legacy and new rules will coexist. This could temporarily increase complexity and compliance costs, rather than immediately simplifying the process.

Claim: The FAR’s complexity is the main barrier to doing business with the government, and its reform will empower all businesses.

• While the FAR is lengthy (over 2,000 pages) and can be a barrier, it is not the sole obstacle. Other factors—such as agency-specific rules, security requirements, and the need for compliance with various federal laws (e.g., labor, environmental, cybersecurity)—also create barriers. Streamlining the FAR alone will not eliminate all hurdles for businesses.
• The claim that “studies have consistently found that the FAR is a barrier” is overstated. While some studies and industry groups have identified FAR complexity as a challenge, others note that the FAR also protects against favoritism, fraud, and waste. Simplification may help some businesses, but could also reduce safeguards that level the playing field, especially for small businesses.
• The EO’s changes could, in the short term, increase uncertainty for contractors, particularly those who must navigate both old and new rules during the transition.

Claim: The EO is part of a broader deregulation initiative (10-to-1 rule), will promote commercial solutions, and has already reduced government size and waste.

• The 10-to-1 deregulation initiative is ambitious, requiring agencies to repeal 10 rules for every new one. However, such numerical targets can lead to the removal of regulations without adequate analysis of their benefits or necessity. Past experience with similar policies (e.g., Trump’s first-term 2-for-1 rule) showed that while many regulations were eliminated, the actual cost savings and impact on efficiency were often overstated or difficult to verify.
• The claim that commercial options always provide “high-quality, cost-effective solutions” is not universally true. Some government procurements require custom solutions due to unique security, mission, or regulatory needs. Over-reliance on commercial products can sometimes result in mismatched capabilities or security vulnerabilities.
• The “Department of Government Efficiency” is a new entity, and its actual impact remains unproven. Early reports suggest its savings claims are “riddled with inaccuracies,” casting doubt on the effectiveness of its efforts so far.
• The assertion that “numerous harmful Biden expansions” have been terminated is a political statement and lacks specific, independently verified evidence in the fact sheet or supporting documents.

The regulatory overhaul introduces transition risks, creating a temporary period of uncertainty as agencies and contractors navigate both legacy and new rules. This may drive up compliance costs and short-term confusion. Oversight and accountability could suffer due to the removal of non-statutory provisions, weakening safeguards that deter fraud, waste, and abuse. Implementation challenges loom large—the success of the reforms depends heavily on precise execution and the agility of stakeholders to adapt. Without this, anticipated benefits may not materialize and could even give rise to unintended negative consequences.

While the fact sheet asserts that the FAR will be dramatically simplified, in practice, the transition is likely to be complex and potentially confusing. Although FAR is a known barrier to entry, it’s not the sole obstacle for businesses; other federal mandates contribute as well. Claims that reform will empower all businesses overlook potential disadvantages to small firms and reductions in oversight. Promises of 10-to-1 deregulation risk discarding valuable rules, with historical savings claims often exaggerated. The idea that commercial solutions always serve government needs best is flawed—certain missions require tailored approaches, and off-the-shelf products may pose security threats. Finally, claims that the Department of Government Efficiency has cut waste remain unverified, with early results under dispute.

While the executive order’s goals — streamlining procurement, reducing bureaucracy, and increasing efficiency — are broadly popular, the fact sheet overstates the likely benefits and understates the risks. The FAR overhaul is a complex, multi-phase process that will require careful management to avoid unintended consequences, such as reduced oversight, increased compliance confusion, and potential for waste or abuse. The claims of immediate and dramatic improvement should be viewed with caution, as the transition is likely to be challenging for both agencies and contractors.