Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Fights Overcriminalization in Federal Regulations

5/9/2025

Fact Sheets

View Original

Action Summary

Easing the Regulatory Burden: Prevents criminalization of individuals for unknowingly violating regulations and discourages strict liability offenses.
Agency Reporting and Transparency: Requires agencies, in consultation with the Attorney General, to compile and publicly post lists of enforceable criminal regulatory offenses, including potential penalties and the state of mind required, with annual updates.
Criminal Enforcement Guidance: Instructs agencies to publish guidance on criminal enforcement that considers harm, defendant’s gain, and awareness of unlawfulness, and to explore adopting a guilty-intent standard.
Exclusions: The Order does not apply to immigration law enforcement or national security functions.
Addressing Overcriminalization: Highlights the absurdity and potential abuse of overregulation, noting that the vast number of regulations (over 48,000 sections and 175,000 pages) risks criminalizing unwitting Americans, with disproportionate impacts on small businesses and individuals compared to large corporations.
Cutting Red Tape and Dismantling Bureaucracy: Institutes measures to streamline government, including:
- Establishing the Department of Government Efficiency to review and cut unnecessary programs and bureaucratic inefficiencies.
- Launching a 10-to-1 deregulation initiative ensuring that each new rule offers clear benefits.
- Implementing buyout programs to encourage voluntary departures among federal employees.
- Simplifying the Federal procurement process to favor cost-effective commercial solutions in contracts.

Risks & Considerations

The Executive Order aims to reduce the regulatory burden, which could lead to a decrease in compliance requirements for institutions like Vanderbilt University. This may simplify some administrative processes but could also result in less oversight and potential risks associated with non-compliance.
By discouraging criminal enforcement of regulatory offenses, there is a risk that some regulatory standards may be weakened, potentially affecting areas such as research compliance, environmental standards, and safety protocols.
The focus on reducing regulations could impact federal funding and grants, as agencies may prioritize deregulation over funding initiatives. This could affect research funding and other financial support that Vanderbilt relies on.
Vanderbilt University may need to reassess its compliance strategies and ensure that it remains informed about any changes in regulatory requirements to avoid potential legal issues.

Impacted Programs

Office of Compliance and Risk Management at Vanderbilt may need to adjust its strategies to align with the new regulatory landscape, ensuring that the university remains compliant with any revised regulations.
Research Departments could be affected by changes in regulatory enforcement, particularly if there are shifts in how research compliance is monitored and enforced.
The Legal Affairs Office might need to provide additional guidance and support to ensure that the university’s operations are not adversely affected by the changes in regulatory enforcement.

Financial Impact

The reduction in regulatory burdens could lead to cost savings for Vanderbilt University, as fewer resources may be needed for compliance-related activities.
However, there is a potential risk of reduced federal funding if deregulation leads to a shift in priorities away from funding initiatives that benefit higher education institutions.
Vanderbilt may need to explore alternative funding sources or partnerships to mitigate any potential financial impacts resulting from changes in federal regulatory policies.

Relevance Score: 3 (The order presents moderate risks involving compliance and potential impacts on funding and regulatory standards.)

Key Actions

Vanderbilt’s Office of Federal Relations should monitor the implementation of the Executive Order to understand how changes in regulatory enforcement might impact university operations, particularly in research and compliance areas. This will help ensure that the university remains compliant with federal regulations while minimizing unnecessary burdens.
The Vanderbilt Law School could explore opportunities to conduct research and provide thought leadership on the implications of easing regulatory burdens and overcriminalization. This research could position the university as a leader in legal scholarship on regulatory reform.
Vanderbilt’s Small Business Development Center should assess how the reduction in regulatory burdens might create new opportunities for entrepreneurship and innovation. By providing guidance and support to small businesses and startups, the center can help them navigate the changing regulatory landscape.
The Department of Political Science should analyze the broader political and economic impacts of the deregulation initiatives. This analysis can provide valuable insights into how these changes affect market dynamics and government efficiency.
Vanderbilt’s Procurement Office should review the simplified Federal procurement process to identify potential opportunities for securing government contracts. By understanding the new requirements, the university can enhance its competitiveness in the federal marketplace.

Opportunities

The executive order presents an opportunity for Vanderbilt’s Center for Entrepreneurship to expand its programs and support services for startups and small businesses. By leveraging the reduced regulatory burdens, the center can foster innovation and economic growth within the university community.
Vanderbilt can capitalize on the deregulation initiatives by developing partnerships with government agencies and private sector organizations focused on streamlining processes and enhancing efficiency. These collaborations could lead to new research opportunities and funding sources.
The emphasis on reducing bureaucratic inefficiency aligns with Vanderbilt’s commitment to operational excellence. The university can implement best practices from the federal initiatives to improve its internal processes and enhance service delivery.
By engaging with policymakers and industry leaders, Vanderbilt can position itself as a thought leader in the national conversation on regulatory reform and government efficiency. Hosting conferences, workshops, and public forums on these topics can further establish Vanderbilt as a hub for innovative policy discussions.

Relevance Score: 3 (The order presents some adjustments needed to processes or procedures, particularly in compliance and research areas.)

Average Relevance Score: 2.6

Timeline for Implementation

Agencies must publish the required reports and update them on an annual basis.

No additional specific deadlines or shorter timelines were provided, so the directives are considered long-term recurring tasks.

Relevance Score: 1

Impacted Government Organizations

Federal Agencies: All agencies are required to review and report their enforceable criminal regulatory offenses to ensure public transparency and accountability, and to adjust enforcement practices based on the guidelines provided.
Office of Management and Budget (OMB): OMB receives the annual reports from agencies, consolidating data on regulatory offenses and penalties for public dissemination and oversight.
Department of Justice (Attorney General): The Attorney General is tasked with providing consultation to agencies and reviewing the enforcement decisions, particularly evaluating the degree of public notice before pursuing charges.
Department of Government Efficiency: This newly established department is charged with examining federal bureaucracy and streamlining government operations, including the implementation of deregulation and process simplification initiatives.

Relevance Score: 2 (A moderate number of Federal Agencies and offices are directly impacted by the executive order.)

Responsible Officials

Agency Heads at Federal Agencies – Tasked with compiling and updating reports on enforceable criminal regulatory offenses and ensuring public dissemination through the OMB.
Attorney General – Required to consult with agencies on the report contents, assess public notice levels before initiating investigations, and consider adopting a guilty-intent standard for regulatory offenses.
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) – Receives the compiled lists from agencies and oversees their public posting and annual updates.

Relevance Score: 4 (Directives affect agency heads and top-level legal and budget officials responsible for the regulatory framework.)