Deregulatory actions in the first 100 days
| January 20 |
On his first day in office, President Trump signed a memorandum directing a regulatory freeze pending review by a department or agency head appointed or designated by the president before publication. The memorandum also instructed agencies to postpone for 60 days the effective date of any unpublished rules or rules that hadn't taken effect, allowing for additional review and comments. |
| January 31 |
President Trump signed EO 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, which requires agencies to identify for repeal at least 10 "regulations" (broadly defined to include binding agency guidance) for each new regulation issued by an agency. |
| February 19 |
President Trump signed EO 14219, Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's "Department of Government Efficiency" Deregulatory Initiative, which required agencies to identify by April 20:
- unconstitutional regulations and regulations raising serious constitutional difficulties
- regulations resulting from unlawful delegations of legislative power
- regulations based on anything other than the best reading of the underlying statutory authority or prohibition
- regulations that implicate matters of social, political, or economic significance that are not authorized by clear statutory authority
- regulations that impose significant costs upon private parties that are not outweighed by public benefits
- regulations that harm the national interest by significantly and unjustifiably impeding technological innovation, infrastructure development, disaster response, inflation reduction, research and development, economic development, energy production, land use, and foreign policy objectives
- regulations that impose undue burdens on small business and impede private enterprise and entrepreneurship.
|
| April 4 |
Treasury and the IRS issued Notice 2025-19 requesting that the public submit recommendations for items to be included in the FY26 Priority Guidance Plan by May 30, 2025.1 The notice further directs that such recommendations 1) include a description of any reduction in taxpayer burden or cost and 2) describe the extent to which the recommendation relates to a regulation that is described as potentially subject to repeal under EO 14219.
|
| April 9 |
President Trump signed a memorandum, directing agencies to repeal "unlawful regulations," including those that do not comply with the standards set forth in the US Supreme Court's decisions in:
- Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo2
- West Virginia v. EPA3
- SEC v. Jarkesy4
- Michigan v. EPA5
- Sackett v. EPA6
- Ohio v. EPA7
- Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid8
- Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard9
- Carson v. Makin10
- Roman Cath. Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo11
The memorandum also directs agencies to finalize regulations, which would repeal the unlawful regulations, without notice and comment under the Administrative Procedure Act's "good cause exception." |
| April 10 |
President Trump signed H.J.Res 25 repealing regulations that would have required digital asset brokers participating in decentralized finance transactions to report gross proceeds from cryptocurrency sales and customers' personal information (TD 10021). The legislation, the first to invalidate a tax rule under the Congressional Review Act, also prohibits the IRS from reissuing the rules in substantially the same form unless specifically authorized by Congress.12 |
| April 14 |
Treasury and the IRS issued Notice 2025-22, obsoleting nine items of subregulatory guidance described as "extraneous and unnecessary." |
| April 17 |
Treasury and the IRS issued Notice 2025-23, announcing forthcoming regulations to remove the Final Basis Shifting Rules found in Reg. §1.6011-18, which were recently published in TD 10028. The notice granted immediate penalty relief. |
Important deadlines
| May 20 |
Deadline for agencies (including Treasury and the IRS) to submit to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) a summary of each "unlawful regulation" identified because of the April 9 memorandum but not repealed, explaining the reasoning for retention. |
| May 30 |
Deadline for taxpayers to submit recommendations under Notice 2025-19 for inclusion in FY 26 Priority Guidance Plan, though recommendations will be accepted for consideration throughout the year. |
Key takeaways
Businesses and other interested parties have the unique opportunity to advocate for the elimination of problematic IRS guidance outside the controversy environment for the next four weeks by taking advantage of the open comment period in Notice 2025-19. Comments should emphasize any projected reductions in costs or administrative burden as well as whether the challenged guidance falls under the categories defined in EO 14219 or the President's April 9 Memorandum (i.e., a regulation that is not the best interpretation of an ambiguous statute).
Businesses should consider reaching out to industry associations regarding regulations that affect a specific industry disproportionately. This may allow for coordination and an increased understanding of the possible impacts of rescission or suggested modifications to IRS guidance.
Businesses and their advisors should consider possible unintended effects of old guidance springing back to life, helpful guidance being rescinded along with problematic guidance, and related guidance being left without references or instructions upon rescission. As a result, businesses and their advisors should consider whether to advocate for total repeal of guidance or surgical repeal of specific provisions and potential modifications to guidance. Businesses should also consider explaining the impact of their preferred approach (repeal vs modification) on other, related guidance.
1 Public comments may be submitted to https://www.regulations.gov/document/IRS-2025-0036-0001.
2 Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024) overturned the Chevron doctrine. According to the fact sheet accompanying the memorandum, agencies are to repeal (1) any regulation that is not consonant with the "single, best meaning" of the statute authorizing it' and (2) any regulation that was promulgated in reliance on the Chevron doctrine and that could be defended only by relying on Chevron deference.
3 West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. 697 (2022) applied the Major Questions Doctrine, i.e., the principle that an agency cannot claim to discover vast delegations of power on an important issue in a statutory text that doesn't clearly provide such authority. According to the fact sheet accompanying the memorandum, agencies must repeal any regulation promulgated in violation of the Major Questions Doctrine.
4 SEC v. Jarkesy, 603 U.S. 109 (2024) held that it violates the Seventh Amendment for agencies to adjudicate common-law claims in their in-house courts. According to the fact sheet accompanying the memorandum, must repeal any regulation authorizing enforcement proceedings that enable the agency's courts to impose judgments or penalties that can only be obtained via jury trial in Article III Courts.
5 Michigan v. EPA, 576 U.S. 743 (2015) held that it violates the Administrative Procedure Act for an agency to promulgate regulations without properly considering the cost as well as the benefits. According to the fact sheet accompanying the memorandum, agencies must repeal any regulation where the costs imposed are not justified by the public benefits, or where such an analysis was never conducted to begin with.
6 Sackett v. EPA, 598 U.S. 651 (2023) ended a twenty-year attempt by the EPA to enforce the Clean Water Act against landowners whose property was near a ditch that fed into a creek, which fed into a navigable, intrastate lake. According to the fact sheet accompanying the memorandum, agencies must repeal any regulation inconsistent with a properly bounded interpretation of "waters of the United States."
7 Ohio v. EPA, 603 U.S. 279 (2024) struck down an EPA plan under the Clean Air Act that the EPA had adopted after the scientific and policy premises undergirding it had been shown to be wrong. According to the fact sheet accompanying the memorandum, agencies must repeal any regulation that does not sufficiently account for the costs it imposes, or for which foundational assumptions have changed and are no longer defensible.
8 Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 594 U.S. 139 (2021) held that a law that forced landowners to admit union organizers onto their property violated the Takings Clause. According to the fact sheet accompanying the memorandum, agencies must repeal any regulation inconsistent with a proper understanding of the Takings Clause.
9 Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 (2023) held that "affirmative action" admission programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. According to the fact sheet accompanying the memorandum, agencies must repeal any regulation that imposes racially discriminatory rules or preferences.
10 Carson v. Makin, 596 U.S. 767 (2022) held that a law excluding religious schools from participating in Maine's school-voucher program violated the Free Exercise Clause. According to the fact sheet accompanying the memorandum, agencies must review their regulations to ensure equal treatment of religious institutions vis-à-vis secular institutions for purposes of funding and access to public benefits.
11 Roman Cath. Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 592 U.S. 14 (2020) struck down New York's Covid-era occupancy restrictions on churches and synagogues because they were uniquely harsher than those that applied to "essential" businesses—such as acupuncture facilities. According to the fact sheet accompanying the memorandum, each agency should review its regulations to ensure at least equal treatment of religious institutions vis-à-vis secular institutions for regulatory purposes.
12 See our client alert, Revisiting the Congressional Review Act, for more information.
