Reducing Anti-Competitive Regulatory Barriers

4/9/2025

Executive Orders

View Original

Action Summary

Purpose: Eliminate federal regulations that hinder competition, stifle entrepreneurship, and inhibit innovation, with the aim of revitalizing the American economy.
Review of Regulations: Agency heads, in consultation with the FTC Chairman and Attorney General, must review existing rules to identify those that:
- Create de facto or de jure monopolies;
- Establish unnecessary barriers to new market entrants;
- Limit competition among market participants;
- Impose restrictive licensure or accreditation requirements;
- Unduly burden procurement processes; or
- Impose other anti-competitive market restraints.
Submission and Public Input:
- Agency heads must submit a list and recommendation for each identified regulation within 70 days.
- The FTC Chairman will issue an RFI within 10 days to collect public input, open for 40 days.
Consolidated List and Recommendations: Within 90 days of receiving agency submissions, the Chairman—consulting with the Attorney General, Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, and agency heads—will provide an OMB Director with a consolidated list recommending rescission or modification of anti-competitive regulations.
Integration into Unified Regulatory Agenda: The OMB Director, in consultation with key stakeholders, will determine whether the proposed rescissions or modifications are incorporated into the Unified Regulatory Agenda under the recent deregulation initiatives.
General Provisions:
- The order does not impair existing statutory authorities of federal agencies or the functions of the OMB.
- Implementation is subject to applicable laws and available appropriations, and it does not confer any enforceable rights or benefits.

Risks & Considerations

The Executive Order aims to eliminate anti-competitive regulations, which could lead to significant changes in the regulatory landscape affecting various sectors, including education and research. This may impact Vanderbilt University if any of its programs or partnerships are subject to such regulations.
There is a potential risk that the removal of certain regulations could lead to increased competition in sectors where Vanderbilt University operates, potentially affecting its market position and strategic initiatives.
The order’s emphasis on reducing barriers to entry and competition could create opportunities for new educational and research initiatives, but it may also require Vanderbilt to adapt quickly to a more competitive environment.
Vanderbilt University may need to assess its compliance with existing regulations and prepare for potential changes that could affect its operations, funding, and partnerships.
The involvement of multiple federal agencies and the requirement for public input could lead to a complex and lengthy process, creating uncertainty for institutions like Vanderbilt that rely on stable regulatory environments.

Impacted Programs

Vanderbilt’s Research Programs may be affected if regulations related to research funding and collaboration are identified as anti-competitive and subject to modification or rescission.
The Office of Government and Community Relations might need to engage with federal agencies and policymakers to ensure that Vanderbilt’s interests are considered in the review and modification of regulations.
Vanderbilt’s Legal and Compliance Teams will need to closely monitor the regulatory changes and assess their impact on the university’s operations and strategic goals.
The Peabody College of Education and Human Development could see changes in its regulatory environment, affecting its programs and partnerships with public and private educational institutions.

Financial Impact

The potential rescission or modification of regulations could impact federal funding opportunities for Vanderbilt, particularly if research and educational grants are affected by changes in the regulatory framework.
Vanderbilt may need to allocate resources to adapt to new regulatory requirements, which could affect its budget and financial planning.
Opportunities for new partnerships and collaborations may arise as barriers to entry are reduced, potentially leading to new revenue streams and funding sources for the university.
The university may need to invest in compliance and legal resources to navigate the changing regulatory landscape and ensure continued access to federal funding and support.

Relevance Score: 4 (The order presents a need for potential major changes or transformations of programs.)

Key Actions

Vanderbilt’s Office of Federal Relations should closely monitor the review process of federal regulations to identify any changes that may impact the university’s operations, particularly in areas related to research funding and procurement processes. Engaging with federal agencies to provide input during the public comment period could help shape outcomes favorable to the university.
The Vanderbilt Project on Unity & American Democracy can leverage this executive order to conduct research on the impacts of deregulation on competition and innovation. By analyzing the effects of these changes, the project can contribute valuable insights to the national discourse on economic policy and regulatory reform.
Vanderbilt’s Legal and Compliance Office should assess the potential implications of rescinded or modified regulations on the university’s compliance obligations. Ensuring that the university remains in compliance with new regulatory standards will be crucial to avoid legal and financial risks.
Vanderbilt’s Business School could explore opportunities to develop new courses or programs focused on regulatory economics and competition policy. This could attract students interested in understanding the complexities of regulatory environments and their impact on business strategy.

Opportunities

The executive order presents an opportunity for Vanderbilt’s Research Centers to seek new funding avenues as anti-competitive regulations are rescinded. By identifying areas where deregulation may lead to increased research funding, the university can position itself to capitalize on emerging opportunities.
Vanderbilt can enhance its role as a thought leader by hosting conferences and workshops on the implications of deregulation for innovation and entrepreneurship. Engaging with policymakers, industry leaders, and academics can further establish Vanderbilt as a hub for innovative economic thought and practice.
The focus on reducing barriers to entry for new market participants aligns with Vanderbilt’s commitment to fostering entrepreneurship. The university can expand its support for startups and small businesses through incubator programs and partnerships with industry stakeholders.

Relevance Score: 4 (The order presents the potential for major process changes required for Vanderbilt’s programs due to impacts on regulatory compliance and research funding.)

Average Relevance Score: 4.6

Timeline for Implementation

10 days: The Chairman must issue a request for information (RFI) within 10 days of the order’s date.
70 days: Agency heads are required to provide a list and recommendations on identified regulations within 70 days of the order’s date.
90 days: A consolidated list of regulations for potential rescission or modification must be provided within 90 days of receipt of the agency lists.

Relevance Score: 5

Impacted Government Organizations

Agency Heads of Federal Agencies: Every federal agency with rulemaking authority (excluding components of the Executive Office of the President) is instructed to review and report on regulations that may stifle competition. This broadly impacts agencies across the government.
Federal Trade Commission (FTC): The FTC Chairman is tasked with issuing a public request for information and coordinating with agencies, playing a key role in identifying anti-competitive regulations.
Department of Justice (DOJ): The Attorney General is directly involved in advising on and consulting about the rescission or modification of regulations that limit competition.
Office of Management and Budget (OMB): The OMB Director is required to consolidate agency submissions into a unified regulatory agenda and coordinate with other officials.
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA): Through its connection with the OMB, this office is integral to integrating the proposed changes into the regulatory framework.
White House Economic Policy Office: The Assistant to the President for Economic Policy is consulted during the review process, ensuring alignment with broader economic initiatives.

Relevance Score: 5 (This directive applies broadly across all federal agencies with rulemaking authority, impacting numerous governmental bodies.)

Responsible Officials

Agency Heads – Tasked with reviewing all regulations within their rulemaking authority, identifying those that hinder competition, and reporting their findings along with recommendations to rescind or modify the regulations.
Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission – Responsible for issuing a request for public input on identified regulations and consolidating agency recommendations in consultation with other key officials.
Attorney General – Consulted during both the agency review process and the consolidation of recommendations for determining appropriate regulatory modifications or rescissions.
Assistant to the President for Economic Policy – Consulted during the consolidation of recommendations to ensure proposed modifications support the Administration’s economic objectives.
Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB Director) – Receives the consolidated list of regulations and, through the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, works with other officials to incorporate decisions into the Unified Regulatory Agenda.
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs – Collaborates with the OMB Director and other key officials to assess and integrate the recommended regulatory changes into the Agenda.

Relevance Score: 5 (Directives affect high-level officials including Cabinet members and White House advisors, reflecting significant strategic impact.)