A NEW LANDSCAPE

Shifting regulatory priorities

Presidents historically take office with grand plans and objectives that influence the landscape of regulation and regulatory enforcement, to a greater or lesser degree than their predecessors. A common element in regulatory change is uncertainty, and that aptly describes the current landscape.

From a historical context, President Trump’s approach to lawmaking since returning to office has been atypical. In the past, presidents have often been content to let Congress lead large-scale regulatory change through legislation.

Although the current Congress has narrow Republican majorities that largely support the executive branch, the House and Senate remain strongly divided along political and ideological lines, making legislation difficult to pass. In the absence of new laws, President Trump has used executive orders, rulemaking by federal agencies, and public pronouncements to enact his agenda.

The current administration began resetting priorities almost immediately. In 2025, President Trump signed 225 executive orders, according to the Federal Register. (See Figure 1.) For comparison, President Trump signed 220 executive orders during his entire first term, while President Biden signed 162 orders during his term and President Obama signed 277 orders over two terms.

A prevalent theme in 2025’s executive orders was deregulation. Specific measures were intended to reduce the impact of economic inflation, improve the international competitiveness of U.S. businesses, strengthen national security, and shrink perceived bureaucracy in the federal government, among other objectives.

Many orders revoked rules and guidance implemented under the Biden administration, resulting in relaxed oversight in some sectors and more stringent enforcement in others. Shortly after his inauguration, for example, President Trump rescinded nearly 80 executive orders by President Biden. Beyond executive orders, federal agencies and departments have also rescinded Biden-era rules and guidance related to a variety of topics, including diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), securities law, digital assets, artificial intelligence, worker classification, and more.

Also unique: President Trump’s use of social media as a form of policymaking.

President Trump has used social platforms in ways his predecessors in the age of social media have not, both to muse about potential policy changes and to direct members of his administration to take action. For example, in September, the president made his case on social media for semiannual reporting by public companies rather than quarterly reporting. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) later announced that it would consider the idea.

In areas where the executive branch and Congress have not taken clear action, as is often the case, some states have pursued legislation and/or litigation to drive their own objectives. For example, absent federal legislation on AI, at least 38 states enacted their own legislation governing the use of AI in various contexts in 2025, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

All 50 states, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Washington, D.C., introduced at least one piece of AI-related legislation last year. Additional state action on AI, however, may be stalled following a recent executive order aimed at limiting the ability of states to enforce their own AI rules.

Private litigation is another area that tends to increase amid shifting regulations. History has shown that deregulation does not eliminate legal conflict; rather, it merely shifts where the conflict is waged. In addition to securities class actions against public companies, litigation risk is also substantial for private companies.

Deregulation efforts are frequently challenged in court, with various stakeholders fighting either to preserve or to overturn the changes. This often-protracted litigation means the deregulation process can be lengthy rather than quick, and it presents uncertainty for businesses as to the ultimate outcome and the manner in which they must operate in the meantime.

Organizations must prepare for potentially dramatic increases in legal expenditures. Organizations must also be mindful that unless and until Congress codifies recent rescissions, rollbacks, and guidance, they can be reversed by a future administration.