President Biden’s administration has surpassed all previous presidential administrations, including that of Barack Obama, in the volume of regulations published in the Federal Register. As of December 3, 2024, the Biden administration has filled a record-breaking 96,088 pages, exceeding Obama’s previous record of 95,894 pages in his final year. This unprecedented output projects the administration to surpass 100,000 pages by the end of its term. The Federal Register, a daily publication managed by the National Archives and Records Administration, documents new and amended federal regulations. While the page count isn’t a perfect measure of regulatory burden, it reflects the extensive reach of federal intervention under the Biden administration. This record-setting pace underscores a significant expansion of the regulatory state.
Experts acknowledge that while the sheer number of pages is a dramatic indicator, it doesn’t fully capture the complexity or impact of the regulations themselves. A regulation spanning several pages may have a lesser economic impact than a concise rule with far-reaching consequences. Furthermore, some regulations are simply updates or revisions to existing rules, not entirely new burdens. Nonetheless, the sheer volume of regulatory activity signals a significant focus on government intervention in various sectors of the economy. This can be interpreted as either a proactive approach to addressing critical issues or an overreach of government power, depending on one’s perspective.
Comparing the regulatory activity of recent administrations provides further context. While the Trump administration had the fourth-largest number of pages filled in the Federal Register during his final year, this was partly attributed to efforts to eliminate existing rules and emergency measures related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Significantly, Trump’s first year in office, 2017, saw the fewest pages added since Bill Clinton’s presidency in 1993. This stark contrast suggests differing regulatory philosophies between the two administrations.
President Trump’s approach to regulation was markedly different. He implemented a policy requiring the removal of two regulations for every new one added, aiming for a net reduction in regulatory burden and cost savings. This “two-for-one” approach reflects a deregulatory philosophy, contrasting with the Biden administration’s more active regulatory stance. Trump has indicated his intention to further amplify these efforts during a potential second term, pledging to eliminate ten regulations for every new one introduced, signaling an even more aggressive pursuit of deregulation.
Business and free-market advocates have expressed concerns about the impact of the Biden administration’s regulatory approach on the economy. They argue that excessive regulation stifles innovation, increases costs for businesses, and hinders economic growth. They view the incoming Trump administration as a potential shift toward a more business-friendly environment, anticipating a reduction in regulatory burdens and a renewed focus on economic growth. Conversely, proponents of more stringent regulation argue that it is necessary to protect public health, safety, and the environment, and address market failures.
The differing regulatory philosophies of the Biden and Trump administrations represent contrasting visions for the role of government in the economy. The Biden administration’s focus on addressing social and environmental concerns through regulation stands in stark contrast to Trump’s emphasis on deregulation and promoting economic growth. This fundamental difference in approach highlights a key debate in American politics, with significant implications for businesses, consumers, and the overall economy. The upcoming election will likely further shape the regulatory landscape, depending on which approach prevails.
