FTC and DOJ Target Rules Accused of Stifling Innovation and Growth

The federal government has set its sights on regulations that may choke competition and innovation. On May 5, 2025, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division sent a letter urging federal agencies to identify rules that hinder entrepreneurship and market vitality. This push follows an executive order from President Donald Trump, directing a thorough review of regulations across the government.

At its core, the initiative aims to remove obstacles that prevent new businesses from thriving and to challenge rules that favor established companies. The effort has ignited a lively discussion. Some see it as a chance to spark economic growth, while others caution that it could weaken critical protections for consumers and workers.

Signed in April 2025, the executive order requires agency heads to deliver lists of anticompetitive regulations by mid-June. Each list must propose eliminating or revising problematic rules or explain why they remain necessary. The FTC and DOJ will then combine these submissions into a single report for the Office of Management and Budget, setting the stage for regulatory changes.

Public participation is central to the process. The FTC’s recent Request for Information invites Americans to share views on regulations that harm competition. This aligns with longstanding practices under the Administrative Procedure Act, which encourages stakeholder input. The DOJ’s Anticompetitive Regulations Task Force, staffed with experts, has also opened a comment window through late May to gather diverse perspectives.

Supporters argue that heavy-handed regulations burden businesses and slow innovation. Compliance costs, which reached $3.1 trillion in 2022, hit small firms hardest, diverting funds from growth or new ideas. Historical successes, like the 1978 Airline Deregulation Act and 1990s spectrum auctions, demonstrate that easing barriers can drive down prices and fuel technological leaps, advocates note.

Past efforts under the Trump administration, including a policy to repeal two rules for every new one, slashed new regulatory costs from $492 billion under prior leadership to $38 billion. Those backing the current initiative see it as a way to build on that record, creating a regulatory environment that encourages competition and rewards bold ideas.

Others express concern that slashing rules could harm consumers and workers. Policy analysts and advocacy groups warn that deregulation might weaken protections for public health, the environment, and fair wages. The 2008 financial crisis, partly tied to relaxed oversight, serves as a cautionary tale. Critics fear that favoring corporate interests could raise prices or erode product quality.

This debate reflects a deeper economic question: how to balance market freedom with accountability. Regulations often correct market flaws, like monopolies or pollution, ensuring fairness and safety. Opponents of the initiative worry that a hasty approach might undermine these gains, leaving consumers and vulnerable groups exposed to new risks.

The initiative’s outcome depends on finding equilibrium. Policymakers must promote innovation while preserving rules that protect consumers and ensure fair markets. History shows that targeted deregulation can spark growth, but missteps can lead to market consolidation or reduced accountability, creating new challenges.

Incorporating public and expert input will help refine the reform process. By listening to businesses, workers, and consumers, the FTC and DOJ aim to craft recommendations that address real-world needs. This collaborative approach highlights the challenge of reforming a regulatory system that impacts every corner of the economy.

As agencies prepare their recommendations and the public contributes ideas, the FTC and DOJ face the task of turning input into practical reforms. The final report, expected later in 2025, will likely fuel further discussion about which regulations to keep or change. The results could redefine how the government shapes markets for years to come.

For Americans, the implications are real. A more competitive economy could bring lower prices and more options, but only if reforms maintain protections that keep markets fair. As this effort unfolds, the nation will closely watch whether it delivers a marketplace that works for everyone.