During his campaign, President-elect Donald Trump emphasized his commitment to deregulation, aiming to free up businesses from what he sees as heavy-handed federal control. For those of us in heavily regulated industries, this is a welcome promise. Navigating the current maze of federal regulations can feel overwhelming, costly, and often detached from reality. Trump’s approach, with its emphasis on reducing “red tape,” could relieve some of these burdens and give businesses more room to grow and innovate.
Trump wants to create an environment where companies can operate without micromanagement from the government, allowing businesses to focus on what they do best: creating value, jobs, and economic growth. He’s looking to scale back rules that many of us view as outdated or unnecessarily restrictive, particularly in environmental, financial, and healthcare sectors. His plan to lower federal oversight, letting businesses make more of their own decisions, is intended to save operational costs, stimulate job creation, and foster more competitive markets. This vision of business freedom is refreshing, and as someone dealing with compliance requirements that sometimes feel overbearing, I’m hopeful his plans can bring meaningful change.
One area where Trump’s plan could make a real difference for us is in financial regulation. He’s suggested loosening parts of the Dodd-Frank Act, which was initially designed to prevent another financial crisis but has since become a heavy regulatory burden for smaller financial institutions. Trump might lean on the Congressional Review Act to roll back some of the more recent rules, potentially relieving us from compliance costs that add up quickly. And he’s looking at a regulatory cost budget to help contain these costs going forward. I’d personally be glad to see some of this regulatory weight lifted.
Trump also intends to shake up leadership within agencies, starting with the SEC. He’s vowed to replace SEC Chair Gary Gensler, whose approach has often been more about regulating through enforcement than constructive oversight. Gensler’s approach has led to significant fines for minor infractions, even when no investors were actually harmed. To me, bringing in someone like Dan Gallagher or Hester Peirce would be a welcome move. I’ve met both and find them to be no-nonsense, grounded leaders who understand the value of practical regulation that protects without strangling.
Of course, some worry that deregulation could harm consumer protections or the environment, arguing that agencies may lose the power they need to enforce critical standards. But Trump’s counter-argument is compelling: his cuts are aimed at reducing inefficiency, not essential oversight. His focus on an efficiency commission, possibly involving someone like Elon Musk, could really be a game-changer. Musk himself has voiced his frustration with government waste, saying he’s eager to help remove needless regulations, and I’d love to see him bring that innovative mindset to D.C.
Ultimately, if Trump can deliver on his promises, I think businesses—especially small and medium-sized ones—could stand to benefit significantly. Lower compliance costs, less bureaucratic hassle, and a more straightforward regulatory environment could give businesses more room to grow, compete, and innovate. For us, this could mean focusing more on serving clients and less on navigating compliance hurdles that sometimes feel disconnected from actual risks. Trump’s vision of deregulation feels like a breath of fresh air for the business community, and I’m optimistic that it could make a real difference in our work.
