Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Tackles Regulations That Stifle Competition
4/9/2025
Action Summary
- Objective: Restore competition in U.S. markets by eliminating anti-competitive regulations.
- Agency Coordination: Agency heads, in coordination with the FTC Chairman and Attorney General, are tasked with reviewing regulations under their authority.
- Scope of Review: Identification of regulations that facilitate monopolies, impose unnecessary barriers to entry, or excessively burden agency procurement processes.
- Timeline: Agencies must submit a list of anti-competitive regulations and corresponding proposals for rescission or modification within 70 days.
- Regulatory Agenda: Regulations identified for modification or rescission will be added to the Unified Regulatory Agenda pursuant to Executive Order 14129.
- Public Engagement: The FTC Chairman is mandated to solicit input from the public to identify regulations that hinder competition, and relay useful feedback to the relevant agencies.
- Economic Growth: This action is part of a broader deregulatory agenda aimed at fostering a competitive, dynamic economy and promoting American economic prosperity.
Risks & Considerations
- The Executive Order’s focus on eliminating anti-competitive regulations could lead to significant changes in the regulatory landscape, affecting industries and sectors that Vanderbilt University collaborates with or relies upon for research funding and partnerships.
- There is a potential risk that deregulation could lead to increased market volatility, which may impact the economic stability of sectors that provide employment opportunities for Vanderbilt graduates.
- The emphasis on public input for identifying anti-competitive regulations may result in unpredictable changes, creating uncertainty for long-term strategic planning at the university.
- Vanderbilt University may need to reassess its compliance strategies and ensure that its operations and partnerships align with the new regulatory environment.
Impacted Programs
- Vanderbilt Law School may see increased demand for expertise in antitrust law and regulatory compliance, presenting opportunities for curriculum development and research initiatives.
- The Owen Graduate School of Management could benefit from new research opportunities related to market competition and economic policy, potentially enhancing its academic offerings and industry partnerships.
- Vanderbilt’s Office of Government and Community Relations might need to engage more actively with federal agencies and policymakers to advocate for the university’s interests in the evolving regulatory landscape.
- The Center for Technology Transfer and Commercialization may need to adjust its strategies to navigate changes in intellectual property and innovation-related regulations.
Financial Impact
- The deregulatory agenda could lead to shifts in federal funding priorities, potentially affecting grant opportunities for research and development at Vanderbilt University.
- Changes in market dynamics resulting from deregulation may influence the financial stability of industries that support Vanderbilt’s research initiatives and partnerships.
- Vanderbilt may need to explore alternative funding sources or partnerships to mitigate potential reductions in federal support due to the changing regulatory environment.
- There could be opportunities for Vanderbilt to secure funding for research on the impacts of deregulation and competition on various sectors of the economy.
Relevance Score: 3 (The order presents moderate risks involving compliance and potential impacts on funding and partnerships.)
Key Actions
- Vanderbilt’s Office of Federal Relations should actively engage with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to provide input on regulations that may impact the university’s operations, particularly those related to research and innovation. By participating in the public input process, Vanderbilt can help shape the regulatory environment to better support academic and research activities.
- The Vanderbilt Project on Unity & American Democracy should analyze the potential impacts of deregulation on economic growth and competition. This analysis can be used to inform university leadership and policymakers about the broader implications of the Executive Order, positioning Vanderbilt as a thought leader in economic policy discussions.
- Vanderbilt’s Research Administration should review current research projects and funding sources to identify any that may be affected by changes in regulations. Proactively adjusting research strategies and seeking alternative funding sources can mitigate potential disruptions caused by regulatory changes.
- Vanderbilt’s Business School should explore opportunities to develop new programs or courses focused on competition and deregulation. By educating students on these topics, the university can prepare future leaders to navigate and influence the evolving economic landscape.
Opportunities
- The Executive Order presents an opportunity for Vanderbilt’s Law School to engage in research and advocacy related to antitrust laws and competition policy. By contributing to the national conversation on deregulation, the Law School can enhance its reputation and influence in legal and policy circles.
- Vanderbilt can capitalize on the deregulatory agenda by fostering partnerships with industries that may benefit from reduced regulatory burdens. These partnerships could lead to collaborative research projects, internships, and job opportunities for students, strengthening Vanderbilt’s ties to the business community.
- The emphasis on public input provides an opportunity for Vanderbilt’s Public Policy Studies program to engage students and faculty in the regulatory review process. By organizing workshops and forums, the program can facilitate discussions on the impact of regulations and gather insights to inform policy recommendations.
Relevance Score: 4 (The Executive Order necessitates major process changes and presents significant opportunities for Vanderbilt to influence and adapt to the evolving regulatory landscape.)
Timeline for Implementation
- 70 days – Agency Heads must provide the FTC Chairman and Attorney General with a list of anti-competitive regulations and proposals to rescind or modify them.
Relevance Score: 3
Impacted Government Organizations
- Federal Trade Commission (FTC): The FTC is tasked with leading the coordination effort, soliciting public input, and working with agency heads to identify and address regulations that impede competition.
- Department of Justice (DOJ) – Attorney General: The Attorney General is charged with coordinating with the FTC and relevant agency heads to review and propose changes to anti-competitive regulations.
- All Federal Regulatory Agencies (Agency Heads): Agency heads across the government are directed to review all regulations under their purview and provide proposals to rescind or modify those that impose anti-competitive restraints.
Relevance Score: 5 (The directive applies broadly across multiple federal agencies, effectively impacting the entire government regulatory framework.)
Responsible Officials
- Agency Heads – Tasked with reviewing all regulations within their authority and identifying those that impose anti-competitive restraints, as well as providing the list and proposals for rescission or modification.
- Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) – Required to coordinate with Agency Heads by receiving the list of regulations, seek public input, and relay useful public responses to the appropriate agencies.
- Attorney General – Collaborates with Agency Heads by receiving the list of anti-competitive regulations and proposals, ensuring enforcement and legal oversight as necessary.
Relevance Score: 4 (Directives impact agency heads and high-level officials responsible for policy implementation and regulatory oversight.)