How Trump's Red Tape Cuts Undermine Decades of Progress

President Trump’s latest executive order, signed in April 2025, promises to revolutionize federal procurement by slashing the Federal Acquisition Regulation’s 2,000 pages of rules. It’s a sweeping vow to cut bureaucratic red tape, streamline government purchasing, and open doors for businesses. On its face, the plan seems pragmatic, a bid to make a trillion-dollar market more efficient. But beneath the rhetoric of 'common sense,' this overhaul threatens to unravel decades of progress in ensuring federal contracts serve not just profit but people and the planet.

The order mandates a 180-day sprint to simplify regulations, preserving only those required by law or deemed essential. Non-statutory rules face a four-year sunset, forcing agencies to justify their existence or watch them expire. For advocates of streamlined government, this sounds like a victory. Yet the aggressive push to prioritize cost and speed raises alarms for those who see procurement as a tool for broader societal good, from fair labor practices to environmental stewardship.

This isn’t just about paperwork. Federal procurement shapes industries, communities, and global supply chains. By dismantling rules that ensure equity and sustainability, the administration risks tilting the scales toward entrenched corporate interests, sidelining small businesses and vulnerable workers. The stakes are high, and the consequences could ripple for generations.

As someone who values justice and accountability, I see this reform as a step backward, cloaked in the guise of efficiency. It’s a narrative we’ve heard before: deregulation as a cure-all, promising prosperity while quietly eroding protections for the marginalized. Let’s unpack why this matters and who stands to lose.

Supporters of the overhaul argue it will unshackle businesses from excessive compliance burdens, letting them compete for government contracts without drowning in paperwork. The administration claims the current system favors entrenched vendors, locking out new players. There’s truth here; the FAR’s complexity can overwhelm small firms, with compliance costs eating up 3 to 5 percent of revenue, a heavier burden for smaller players. But the solution isn’t to gut the system wholesale.

Historical data paints a troubling picture. From 2010 to 2019, small business participation in federal contracting dropped by 38 percent, with new entrants plummeting 79 percent from 2005 to 2019. Rules like the Small Business Act’s 23 percent set-aside target and the 'Rule of Two' were designed to counter this trend, ensuring small firms get a fair shot. Recent SBA proposals to expand set-asides could boost small business spending by $6 billion annually. Yet Trump’s order, with its focus on slashing requirements, risks weakening these protections, leaving small businesses to fend for themselves against corporate giants.

Then there’s the human cost. The administration’s rollback of diversity requirements and contractor minimum wage increases signals a troubling disregard for workers. These rules weren’t bureaucratic fluff; they ensured fair pay and representation in a system historically skewed toward privilege. Eliminating them under the banner of efficiency dismisses the lived realities of low-wage workers and minority-owned firms striving for a foothold.

Perhaps the most alarming casualty is environmental responsibility. The order’s push to prioritize commercial products and eliminate climate-related rules undermines decades of progress in green procurement. Since the 1970s, federal purchasing has evolved to consider lifecycle costs and supplier practices, reducing emissions and promoting sustainable innovation. Companies adopting these practices have cut supply chain emissions significantly, some achieving 9 percent cost savings in the process.

Contrast this with the administration’s approach, which treats environmental standards as dispensable. By stripping away requirements for sustainable certifications or emissions tracking, the reform prioritizes short-term gains over long-term survival. This isn’t just policy wonkery; it’s about clean air, safe water, and a planet our children can inherit. The European Union’s 2014 Procurement Directive shows it’s possible to balance cost and sustainability, embedding social and environmental goals into every contract. Why can’t we?

The administration’s defenders might argue that businesses, freed from red tape, will innovate independently. But without mandates, profit-driven firms often cut corners, externalizing costs onto communities and ecosystems. The data is clear: voluntary sustainability efforts lag behind enforced standards. By dismantling these guardrails, the government abdicates its role as a steward of public welfare.

This procurement overhaul doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It’s part of a broader deregulatory blitz, with Trump’s '10-for-1' rule demanding ten regulations repealed for every new one. The administration has revoked 78 Biden-era orders, targeting health, safety, and environmental protections. The Department of Government Efficiency, a new player in this saga, is driving agency reorganizations and cost-cutting with a zeal that borders on reckless. The speed of these changes, often bypassing public comment, raises questions about transparency and accountability.

Executive power has always shaped policy, from Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation to Truman’s military desegregation. But the current approach feels less like principled leadership and more like a wrecking ball, dismantling systems without regard for their purpose. Procurement isn’t just about buying goods; it’s about setting a standard for fairness, innovation, and responsibility. By prioritizing cost above all, the administration risks creating a race to the bottom, where only the cheapest survive.

The allure of a leaner government is undeniable, but efficiency must not come at the expense of justice. Procurement reform could be a chance to modernize, to strengthen small business access and embed sustainability as a core principle. Instead, the current path favors expediency over equity, profit over purpose. We deserve a system that reflects our values, one that lifts up workers, protects our environment, and ensures every business has a fair shot.

As citizens, we must demand accountability. The FAR’s complexity is real, but so is its role in safeguarding public interest. Let’s advocate for a procurement system that balances cost with conscience, drawing on global best practices and hard-won lessons. The fight for a fairer, greener future starts here, and we can’t afford to lose.