• The Trump administration has issued Executive Orders that direct federal agencies to review, rescind, or modify current regulations deemed unconstitutional, overly burdensome, or contrary to the national interest. 
• Agencies are tasked with identifying regulations that conflict with principles like the non-delegation doctrine, major question doctrine, and those previously upheld under Chevron deference, as well as those imposing significant costs not justified by their public benefits.
• Agencies have a 60-day timeline to identify suspect regulations and work with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs to revise the regulatory framework. Businesses should monitor these developments closely.

The Trump administration has recently issued a series of Executive Orders on “deregulation,” directing federal agencies to review, rescind, and modify existing federal regulations. This regulatory overhaul presents both challenges and opportunities for regulated businesses.

The rules under which many industries currently operate may undergo significant change in the coming months. Recission or modification of regulations could also spur litigation, adding to the uncertainty. But these deregulation plans also provide an opportunity for businesses to help administrative agencies identify regulations that should be rescinded and shape new rules.

60-Day Review Period

On February 19, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order titled “Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ Deregulatory Initiative.” The EO directs agencies to identify, within 60 days, regulations that should be rescinded or modified because they are unconstitutional or not in the national interest. Agencies are also directed to de-prioritize the enforcement of such regulations. The EO contains a list of the types of regulations to be identified for rescission. In addition to identifying “unconstitutional regulations and regulations that raise serious constitutional concerns” generally, the EO identifies several categories of constitutionally suspect regulations based on recent Supreme Court decisions that have limited regulatory authority.

The Non-Delegation Doctrine

The EO directs agencies to identify “regulations that are based on unlawful delegation of legislative power.” This criteria invokes the non-delegation doctrine, which has been largely dormant since the New Deal era. The doctrine currently only requires that Congress provide the agency with an “intelligible principle” to guide its rulemaking. Several Supreme Court justices are interested in developing a more robust non-delegation doctrine, and the Supreme Court is set to hear a case this term regarding whether the FCC’s Universal Service Fund is unconstitutional under the non-delegation doctrine. (Regardless of the outcome of that case, Trump’s Executive Order is designed to identify regulations that raise non-delegation concerns.

Loper Bright and Chevron

Agencies are also directed to identify “regulations that are based on anything other than the best reading of the underlying statutory authority or prohibition.” This category refers to the Supreme Court’s decision last term in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overruled Chevron deference. (See our previous client alert). Instead of deferring to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of ambiguous statutory language, courts are now required to “exercise their independent judgment” when interpreting statutory authority of agency action.

In his ruling, Chief Judge Robert explicitly stated that the Court was not overruling prior cases upholding regulations under the Chevron framework, such as the Clean Air Act which was at issue in Chevron. Those cases are still binding precedent. But Trump’s executive order calls into question regulations that were previously upheld under Chevron because agencies are directed to self-evaluate whether any of their existing regulations are “based on anything other than a best reading of the underlying statutory authority,” regardless of past precedent.

Major Question Doctrine

The last category of legally suspect regulations that agencies are to identify are “regulations that implicate matters of social, political, or economic significance that are not authorized by clear statutory authority.” This category refers to the “major question doctrine,” a principle of statutory interpretation which has recently received increased attention from the Supreme Court. The doctrine requires a clear statement by Congress to delegate regulatory authority over questions of major political or economic significance. For example, in 2022’s West Virginia v. EPA, the Supreme Court struck down EPA emissions regulations under major questions doctrine. The following year, Biden v. Nebraska struck down a student loan forgiveness program).

Cost-Benefit Analysis

The rest of the categories listed in the Executive Order are based on policy or practical considerations, rather than constitutional concerns. Agencies are to identify:

• (v) “regulations that impose significant costs upon private parties that are not outweighed by public benefits.”
• (vi) “regulations that 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 objections;” and
• (vii) “regulations that impose undue burdens on small businesses and impede private enterprise and entrepreneurship.”

These categories focus on the traditional cost-benefit analysis that goes into agency rulemaking, although the executive order focuses its attention on economic growth and potential costs and burdens on businesses.

Next-Steps

Agencies are to identify such regulations within 60 days and are instructed to work with the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) to develop a regulatory agenda that seeks to rescind or modify these regulations. Presumably agencies will then begin the process of rescinding or modifying the rules which they have identified as suspect, which would include notice and public comment under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).

10 to 1 Repeal

This deregulation order follows on the heels of a January 31, 2025 Executive Order providing that for every new regulation any agency proposes to enact, the agency must identify “at least” 10 existing regulations to be rescinded. In addition, together with the Office of Management and Budget, agencies must determine the incremental costs imposed by new regulations and ensure that the net costs – new costs minus the cost savings of rescinded regulations – are “substantially” less than zero. See accompanying Fact Sheet.

Both Executive Orders apply generally to all executive agencies, except regulations that address military or foreign affairs functions, homeland security or immigration-related initiatives.

What This Means For Your Business

In the short term, regulated businesses should be prepared for uncertainty regarding the future of the rules governing their industries. To get ahead of the curve, companies should review the entire landscape of federal regulations which govern their operations and consider whether any regulation falls within the categories specified in the Executive Order. Companies should consider how a change would affect the competitive landscape of their business and consider how to prepare for such change. It will also be important to monitor proposed changes and participate in public comment periods.

Moreover, if a regulation is particularly burdensome (or helpful), there is an opportunity to highlight the need for reform (or maintaining the status quo) directly to the governing agency and Congress. Businesses and their trade associations can prepare white papers or engage in direct advocacy to rescind or modify harmful regulations and to keep helpful regulations.

Together with recent changes in regulatory law announced by the U.S. Supreme Court, the new administration’s deregulatory agenda represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity for American business to participate in reshaping the regulatory landscape.