President Trump’s Deregulation Effort Has Already Saved Families Thousands of Dollars
March 6, 2025
Action Summary
- Regulatory Cost Comparison: Highlights that Biden-era regulations added over $1.8 trillion (approximately $21,090 per family of four) versus President Trump’s approach, which has saved over $180 billion (or $2,100 per family of four).
- Trump’s Deregulatory Agenda: Emphasizes an aggressive rollback of Biden regulations by halting new rules and mandating the elimination of ten existing regulations for every new one introduced; includes the adoption of a new 1-in-10-out regulatory budget policy.
- Key Policy Actions:
- Halting the creation of new regulations.
- Abolishing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives across agencies.
- Boosting domestic energy production via eased access to energy resources and improved infrastructure.
- Biden Administration Regulatory Costs: Details costly regulatory measures, notably within EPA rules—72% of the new regulatory burden ($1.3 trillion)—and expensive mandates across the Departments of Treasury, Transportation, Health and Human Services, and Defense.
- Sector-Specific Impacts: Identifies major cost drivers including:
- Automobile and environmental rules (e.g., emissions reductions saving consumers $1.134 trillion when rolled back).
- Water regulations and mandates for emissions, fuel efficiency, and reporting requirements.
- Additional Regulatory Examples: Mentions unusual rules such as:
- A USPS guideline requiring the exclusive use of specific cremains shipping supplies.
- An FTC regulation mandating uniform testing methods for home audio amplifiers.
- Overall Implication: Presents an overarching strategy to cut red tape, lower costs, and stimulate growth by reversing what is characterized as burdensome and costly regulations.
Risks & Considerations
- The aggressive deregulatory agenda under President Trump, including the 1-in-10-out regulatory budget, could lead to significant changes in compliance requirements for institutions like Vanderbilt University. This may necessitate adjustments in administrative processes to ensure compliance with fewer but potentially more impactful regulations.
- The abolition of DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) across agencies could impact federal funding and partnerships that prioritize these values. Vanderbilt may need to reassess its DEI initiatives and funding sources to maintain its commitment to diversity and inclusion.
- The rollback of environmental regulations, particularly those related to greenhouse gas emissions, could affect Vanderbilt’s sustainability initiatives and partnerships with environmentally-focused organizations. The university may need to evaluate its environmental policies and practices in light of these changes.
- Changes in healthcare regulations, such as those affecting Medicare and Medicaid, could impact Vanderbilt’s medical programs and partnerships with healthcare providers. This may require strategic adjustments to align with new regulatory landscapes.
Impacted Programs
- Vanderbilt’s Office of Compliance and Risk Management may need to increase its focus on monitoring regulatory changes and ensuring that the university remains compliant with new federal guidelines.
- The Office of Diversity and Inclusion might face challenges in maintaining its initiatives and securing funding if federal support for DEI programs diminishes.
- Vanderbilt’s School of Medicine and related healthcare programs could be affected by changes in healthcare regulations, necessitating adjustments in curriculum and partnerships with healthcare providers.
- The Sustainability and Environmental Management Office may need to reassess its strategies and partnerships in response to the rollback of environmental regulations.
Financial Impact
- The deregulatory measures could lead to reduced administrative costs for compliance, potentially freeing up resources for other initiatives. However, the long-term financial impact will depend on how these changes affect federal funding and partnerships.
- Vanderbilt may experience shifts in funding opportunities, particularly if federal grants prioritize areas other than DEI and environmental sustainability. This could necessitate adjustments in grant application strategies and research focus areas.
- Changes in healthcare regulations could impact funding and reimbursement rates for Vanderbilt’s medical programs, affecting financial planning and resource allocation.
Relevance Score: 4 (The deregulatory actions present a need for potential major changes or transformations in compliance and strategic planning.)
Key Actions
- Vanderbilt’s Office of Federal Relations should monitor changes in regulatory policies, particularly those related to environmental regulations and energy production, to assess potential impacts on research funding and compliance requirements. Engaging with policymakers to understand the implications of deregulation could help the university align its strategic initiatives with federal priorities.
- The School of Engineering should explore opportunities to collaborate with industries affected by deregulation, particularly in the areas of energy production and automotive technologies. By leveraging expertise in sustainable engineering and innovation, the school can position itself as a leader in developing solutions that align with new regulatory landscapes.
- Vanderbilt’s Environmental and Sustainability Studies Program should evaluate the potential impacts of deregulation on environmental policies and research. This includes assessing how changes in greenhouse gas emissions regulations might affect ongoing and future research projects, as well as exploring new areas of study that address the consequences of deregulation.
- The Department of Political Science should conduct research on the broader societal impacts of deregulation policies. This research can provide valuable insights into how these policies affect economic growth, environmental sustainability, and social equity. Sharing these findings with policymakers and the public can enhance Vanderbilt’s role as a thought leader in policy analysis.
Opportunities
- The deregulation efforts present an opportunity for Vanderbilt’s Law School to expand its research and teaching on regulatory law and policy. By analyzing the legal implications of deregulation, the law school can contribute to the national conversation on regulatory reform and its impacts on various sectors.
- Vanderbilt can capitalize on the focus on boosting domestic energy production by developing new programs and partnerships with energy companies. This could include joint research initiatives, student internships, and collaborative projects that enhance Vanderbilt’s reputation and reach in the energy sector.
- The emphasis on reducing regulatory burdens offers an opportunity for Vanderbilt’s Owen Graduate School of Management to engage in policy analysis and advocacy. By providing evidence-based recommendations, the school can influence how deregulation policies are implemented and their effects on business practices.
Relevance Score: 4 (The deregulation efforts require major process changes and present significant opportunities for Vanderbilt’s programs, particularly in research and policy analysis.)
Timeline for Implementation
N/A – No specific deadlines or timeframes for the implementation of the deregulation directives were mentioned in the directives.
Relevance Score: 1
Impacted Government Organizations
- Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Subject to significant regulatory cost analysis, as 72% of new regulatory burdens and expensive emissions mandates affect this agency.
- Department of the Treasury: Impacted by new mandates requiring disclosure of beneficial owners to FinCEN.
- Department of Transportation: Affected by new fuel efficiency mandates for passenger cars, light trucks, vans, and heavy-duty pickups.
- Department of Health and Human Services (HHS): Faces new mandates impacting Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP programs along with additional staffing and reporting requirements.
- Department of Defense (DoD): Impacted by new safeguards to protect Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) and Federal Contract Information (FCI).
- United States Postal Service (USPS): Affected by a regulation concerning the exclusive use of specified shipping supplies for cremains.
- Federal Trade Commission (FTC): Subject to a new regulation requiring standardization of testing methods for home audio amplifier power output claims.
Relevance Score: 3 (A moderate number of Federal Agencies are impacted by the deregulation and regulatory cost directives.)
Responsible Officials
- President Trump – As the principal executive authority, he issues the executive orders that direct the deregulation agenda.
- Heads of Federal Agencies – Responsible for implementing these directives by halting the creation of new regulations, establishing a 1-in-10-out regulatory budget, and abolishing DEI policies across their agencies.
Relevance Score: 4 (Directives directly impact agency heads, who oversee the implementation of executive orders and policy changes.)