N※N

Show Sports and Competition Publications

Revocationof Executive Orderon Competition

Presidential Revocation of Executive Order on Promoting Competition: A Detailed Analysis

In a significant policy shift, the White House has issued a new executive action dated August 2025, formally revoking Executive Order 14036, which was originally signed by President Joe Biden on July 9, 2021. Titled "Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy," the 2021 order aimed to address what the Biden administration viewed as excessive market concentration and anticompetitive practices across various sectors of the U.S. economy. The revocation, announced through the official White House website under the Presidential Actions section, marks a deliberate pivot away from enhanced antitrust enforcement and regulatory oversight, signaling a return to a more laissez-faire approach to economic policy.

The document begins with a preamble that outlines the rationale for the revocation. It argues that the original executive order imposed unnecessary burdens on businesses, stifled innovation, and overreached federal authority into areas better left to market forces and state regulations. According to the text, the 2021 order directed numerous federal agencies—including the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Department of Agriculture, and others—to pursue aggressive antitrust actions, such as scrutinizing mergers, challenging non-compete agreements, and promoting competition in industries like technology, healthcare, agriculture, and transportation. The revocation asserts that these measures have led to "regulatory uncertainty" and "economic drag," particularly in a post-pandemic recovery period where businesses need flexibility to grow and compete globally.

Delving deeper into the specifics, the revocation highlights several key provisions of the original order that are now nullified. For instance, EO 14036 encouraged the FTC to ban or limit non-compete clauses in employment contracts, which the Biden administration argued restricted worker mobility and suppressed wages. The new action counters this by emphasizing that such restrictions should be handled at the state level or through private negotiations, rather than federal mandates. Similarly, the order's directives on right-to-repair laws, which aimed to make it easier for consumers to fix their own devices without manufacturer restrictions, are revoked, with the document claiming that these interfered with intellectual property rights and innovation incentives for companies.

In the agricultural sector, the revocation undoes calls for stronger enforcement against monopolistic practices in meatpacking and seed industries. The original order sought to empower small farmers and ranchers by addressing consolidation that allegedly drove up food prices and squeezed out independent producers. The 2025 action, however, posits that market dynamics, rather than government intervention, are the best way to ensure efficiency and affordability in food supply chains. It references recent economic data suggesting that deregulation could lower costs for consumers by allowing larger entities to scale operations more effectively.

The transportation and broadband sectors also see major rollbacks. EO 14036 pushed for policies to reduce barriers to entry in shipping, airlines, and internet services, including efforts to combat high fees and limited access in rural areas. The revocation argues that these initiatives have inadvertently increased compliance costs for providers, potentially leading to higher prices for end-users. Instead, it advocates for a "pro-growth" framework that prioritizes private investment and technological advancement without heavy-handed federal guidelines.

A notable aspect of the revocation is its emphasis on international competitiveness. The document warns that the previous order's focus on domestic antitrust enforcement put U.S. companies at a disadvantage against foreign competitors, particularly from China and Europe, where regulatory environments are perceived as less stringent. By revoking these measures, the administration aims to unleash American innovation, foster job creation, and strengthen the economy's global standing. It calls on agencies to redirect resources toward supporting business expansion, such as through tax incentives and streamlined permitting processes, rather than enforcement actions.

The executive action also includes directives for immediate implementation. All federal agencies previously tasked under EO 14036 are instructed to cease related rulemaking, withdraw pending regulations, and report back to the White House within 60 days on steps taken to comply. This includes halting ongoing investigations or litigations that stemmed from the 2021 order, unless they align with new priorities. The document underscores that this revocation does not preclude agencies from addressing genuine anticompetitive behavior under existing laws like the Sherman Act or Clayton Act, but it reframes the approach to be more "targeted and evidence-based" rather than broadly prescriptive.

Critics of the revocation, including consumer advocacy groups and progressive policymakers, have already voiced concerns. They argue that dismantling these protections could exacerbate income inequality, allow corporate giants to dominate markets unchecked, and harm workers' rights. For example, labor unions have pointed out that non-compete clauses affect millions of workers, limiting their ability to switch jobs for better pay. Antitrust experts warn that without federal oversight, mergers like those in tech and pharmaceuticals could accelerate, leading to higher prices and reduced innovation over time.

On the other hand, supporters, including business lobbies and free-market advocates, hail the move as a necessary correction to overregulation. They contend that the Biden-era order contributed to inflation and supply chain disruptions by deterring investments. Industry leaders in Silicon Valley and Wall Street have expressed optimism, suggesting that reduced regulatory hurdles will spur entrepreneurship and economic dynamism.

Historically, this revocation fits into a pattern of oscillating antitrust policies between administrations. The Reagan era, for instance, saw a relaxation of enforcement, while the Obama and Biden administrations ramped it up. This 2025 action could set the stage for legislative battles in Congress, where bills to codify or challenge these changes might emerge. It also raises questions about the durability of executive orders, as they can be easily undone by successors, highlighting the need for more permanent statutory reforms.

In terms of broader implications, the revocation aligns with a deregulatory agenda that prioritizes economic growth over equity concerns. It may influence ongoing cases, such as DOJ suits against major tech firms, potentially leading to settlements or dismissals. For everyday Americans, the effects could manifest in areas like healthcare costs, where the original order sought to lower prescription drug prices through increased competition, or in gig economy platforms, where worker classification rules were under scrutiny.

Overall, this executive action represents a bold reorientation of U.S. competition policy, emphasizing market freedom and business autonomy. As the administration moves forward, the debate over the balance between regulation and innovation is likely to intensify, shaping the economic landscape for years to come. The full text of the revocation is available on the White House website, providing a comprehensive view of this pivotal policy change.

Read the Full whitehouse.gov Article at:
[ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/08/revocation-of-executive-order-on-competition/ ]