Candidate Trump promised to roll back regulations when he ran for president last campaign cycle. He has claimed deregulation was a hallmark of his first term and that his second term would be even more “deregulatory.” Experts will disagree on whether any one president succeeds in reducing the federal regulatory burden. What we do know is that Trump 2.0 has taken early and aggressive deregulatory measures expected to significantly impact many sectors of the U.S. economy.
A Campaign Promise
Executive Order 13771 symbolized the deregulatory aim of Trump 1.0 by imposing a one-in two-out policy, meaning for every new regulation, two existing regulations or guidance documents had to go. Trump 2.0 bested that imperative on Jan. 31, 2025, by issuing another executive order requiring a 10-to-1 metric under which agencies are required to eliminate 10 existing regulations or guidance documents for every new rule. An earlier executive order issued on Jan. 20, 2025, froze pending regulations. It also authorized agency heads to postpone the effective date of final rules to enable the new administration to review the rule and take further appropriate action. Many such rules are expected to change.
By any measure, Trump 2.0 has acted swiftly and aggressively to implement the administration’s deregulatory agenda. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Administrator Zeldin have taken these imperatives to heart. On March 12, 2025, for example, EPA announced 31 significant actions resulting in the “biggest deregulatory” measure ever, according to EPA. The rollbacks include reconsideration of:
- Regulations on power plants (Clean Power Plan 2.0);
- Regulations throttling the oil and gas industry (OOOO b/c);
- Mercury and Air Toxics Standards that improperly targeted coal-fired power plants (MATS);
- mandatory greenhouse gas reporting program that imposed significant costs on the American energy supply (GHG Reporting Program);
- Limitations, guidelines and standards (ELG) for the steam electric power generating industry to ensure low-cost electricity while protecting water resources (Steam Electric ELG);
- wastewater regulations for oil and gas development to help unleash American energy (Oil and Gas ELG); and
- Biden-Harris administration risk management program rule that made America’s oil and natural gas refineries and chemical facilities less safe (Risk Management Program Rule).
- Other significant measures include reconsideration of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the energy and manufacturing sectors, revisiting the “social cost of carbon,” and reconsidering the 2009 Endangerment Finding and regulations.
The new administration also created an electronic portal to allow regulated entities to seek a “presidential exemption” to certain requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA), relying upon CAA Section 112(i)(4).
This provision authorizes the president to grant exemptions from NESHAP compliance if necessary for national security reasons. This unprecedented action has riled some in the academic and non-governmental organization communities, calling the portal and the totality of the idea writ large legally vulnerable. Regulated entities thought otherwise, given the number of exemption requests expected to have been submitted.
An especially consequential impact of the NESHAP initiative is the reconsideration of NESHAP related to chemical manufacturing and commercial sterilizers. On March 12, 2024, the EPA stated that it was “initially” reconsidering NESHAPs for commercial sterilizers for medical devices and spices, among other categories, inserting the new administration squarely in the hotly contested ethylene oxide scientific debate. The American Chemistry Council (ACC) applauded the move, noting that EPA’s final rulemaking “disregards relevant scientific evidence, overlooks significant practical concerns, and exceeds EPA’s statutory authority.”
Another consequential initiative anxiously anticipated by the chemical community is EPA’s reconsideration of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) 2024 Risk Evaluation Framework Rule. This rule outlines the process EPA must follow when conducting a chemical risk evaluation under TSCA Section 6. Assuming EPA significantly revises the framework rule, as is expected, a new risk evaluation paradigm will significantly impact new risk evaluations and call into question existing risk evaluations under TSCA now supporting final and proposed risk management rules. And yes, chemical stakeholders and TSCA aficionados of all stripes are nursing a collective headache trying to sort out what this means and how best to navigate these tricky legal issues.
Discussion
We may well be living in an era of deregulation. Trump 2.0 is more aggressive, focused and experienced in navigating the federal administrative machinery than Trump 1.0. The federal workforce is reduced, and response measures diminish proportionately. Disruption on this scale invites vigorous and often unanticipated consequences. It remains to be seen if deregulation on this scale aligns with what the regulated community anticipated and whether it will achieve the intended result.
