Trump revokes Biden's executive decision with a presidential decree
In July 2021, President Joe Biden signed an executive order aimed at promoting competition across the U.S. economy. The policy aimed to boost consumer protections, crack down on anti-competitive mergers, limit exploitative practices, and restore market fairness, particularly in sectors such as airlines, agriculture, technology, healthcare, and broadband services.
However, in a significant policy shift, President Donald Trump revoked this executive order in 2022. Trump viewed the order as an expansion of federal regulatory control that hindered free market functioning, innovation, and business activity. The revocation emphasized reducing regulatory burdens and allowing markets to operate more freely, focusing on enforcing existing antitrust laws rather than introducing new, broad regulatory schemes.
Biden's approach was a comprehensive, "whole-of-government" effort marked by 72 specific provisions aiming to combat market consolidation and anti-competitive behaviors that were perceived to harm consumers, workers, and small businesses. It broadened the scope of antitrust enforcement to consider impacts beyond just prices—such as effects on workers and innovation—and targeted various industries, including healthcare, technology, and agriculture. It also encouraged inter-agency cooperation to address systemic competition issues.
In contrast, Trump's approach was more market-driven, focusing on deregulation and limiting government intervention. The revocation of the order signals a shift towards a more free-market competition policy, rejecting what Trump's administration characterized as Biden’s “overly prescriptive and burdensome” regulatory framework.
The Justice Department welcomed Trump's revocation of the order, stating they are pursuing an "America first antitrust" approach. The initiatives launched by Biden's 2021 executive order included addressing the monopolistic control of meatpacking companies in agriculture, examining platform dominance and data practices in the tech industry, and scrutinising large mergers across various sectors.
The US national debt has reached a new high at $37 trillion as of August 13, 2025. This debt level is not directly related to the revocation of the executive order but is mentioned in the context of the article.
The policy was widely supported by progressives and economists who viewed government intervention as essential to restoring balance in increasingly concentrated markets. However, critics argue that Biden’s approach expanded intrusive regulatory oversight, including empowering agencies like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to apply aggressive antitrust and price-control measures. This, according to Trump and supporters, favored entrenched regulators and politically connected corporations rather than genuine consumer and entrepreneurial interests.
In conclusion, Trump's revocation of Biden's executive order on promoting competition marks a significant policy shift towards more market-driven solutions and less federal oversight. The revocation aligns with a deregulatory agenda that prioritizes economic efficiency, investor freedom, and minimal government interference.
- The revocation of Biden's executive order on promoting competition, initiated by President Trump in 2022, signifies a move towards less federal oversight and more market-driven solutions in finance, business, and industry, similar to Trump's deregulatory agenda.
- Biden's approach to competition policy, as outlined in his 2021 executive order, broadened the scope of antitrust enforcement, making it a critical point of discussion in the realm of policy-and-legislation and politics, focusing on sectors like technology, healthcare, and agriculture.
- In the general-news context, the opposing views on competition policy between Biden and Trump have been a hot topic, with economists and progressives supporting government intervention for balance in concentrated markets, but critics arguing that such a policy could favor entrenched regulators and corporations over genuine consumer interests.
