On January 20, 2025, President Donald J. Trump signed a Presidential Memorandum titled "Delivering Emergency Price Relief for American Families and Defeating the Cost-of-Living Crisis." This memorandum aims to address various economic challenges and alleviate financial burdens on American households.
Claim 1: The Biden Administration imposed complex regulatory burdens and radical policies designed to weaken American production.
This claim oversimplifies the intent and impact of Biden-era regulations. While it’s true that the Biden administration introduced policies to address climate change, labor protections, and public health, these measures were aimed at addressing systemic challenges rather than weakening production. For example:
The Inflation Reduction Act incentivized clean energy investments, fostering job creation in renewable energy sectors rather than "weakening" production.
Economic studies (e.g., by Brookings) show that long-term investments in clean energy can strengthen industries rather than undermine them.
Moreover, U.S. manufacturing output hit record highs in 2023, contradicting the narrative that Biden’s policies broadly weakened production.
Claim 2: President Trump is ordering all Federal agencies to untangle the American economy from Biden constraints and improve affordability of necessary goods and services and increase the prosperity of American workers.
This directive is largely rhetorical and lacks substantive details. “Untangling” regulations does not automatically lead to economic prosperity. Regulatory rollback can lead to:
1. Environmental degradation if clean energy rules are repealed.
2. Increased workplace risks if labor protections are weakened.
3. Rising long-term consumer costs if energy efficiency standards are abandoned.
The assumption that deregulation inherently improves affordability is not universally true. For example, the deregulation of financial markets during past administrations contributed to economic instability, culminating in the 2008 financial crisis.
Claim 3: The memorandum will drastically lower housing costs, eliminate healthcare administrative expenses, and create jobs.
1. Housing Costs:
The memorandum does not provide actionable plans for reducing housing costs or expanding supply. The Biden administration had already proposed reforms to ease zoning laws and incentivize affordable housing development, which are more concrete than vague promises.
According to the Urban Institute, housing costs are driven more by local zoning laws and supply constraints than federal regulations.
2. Healthcare Costs:
Administrative costs in healthcare are significant, but addressing them requires systemic reform, such as those proposed under the Affordable Care Act, which aimed to streamline billing and improve efficiency.
Trump's 2017 efforts to repeal ACA provisions often resulted in higher premiums for consumers, undermining affordability.
3. Employment Creation:
Simply removing regulations does not guarantee job growth. Past deregulation in industries like mining and manufacturing failed to reverse long-term employment declines caused by automation and global competition.
Claim 4: Unprecedented regulatory oppression from the Biden Administration imposed $50,000 in costs on households, while Trump reduced them by $11,000.
The $50,000 figure comes from partisan think tanks like the Committee to Unleash Prosperity, which rely on speculative lifetime cost estimates rather than peer-reviewed economic analysis. Independent economists do not universally accept these numbers.
Similarly, the claim that Trump reduced household costs by $11,000 ignores the fact that some of his deregulations, like loosening environmental protections, shifted costs onto households through increased pollution and long-term health impacts.
Additionally, regulatory "savings" under Trump disproportionately benefited corporations, with limited direct relief for average families.
Claim 5: American households are paying $1,200 more per year in energy costs under Biden’s policies.
Energy costs are primarily driven by global factors, such as the war in Ukraine, which disrupted oil and gas markets.
The Biden administration’s policies include investments in renewable energy to reduce long-term dependency on volatile fossil fuel markets. For example, the administration’s expansion of wind and solar capacity could stabilize energy costs over time.
Data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration shows fluctuations in energy costs due to global supply chain issues, not solely due to Biden’s policies.
Claim 6: Gasoline prices rose dramatically under Biden, from $2.33 per gallon to over $5.00.
Gas prices are influenced by crude oil prices, refining capacity, and geopolitical factors. While it’s true that prices rose during Biden’s term, much of the increase occurred due to global factors, including:
Post-pandemic demand surges.
The Russia-Ukraine war disrupting oil supplies.
The claim ignores that gas prices have since moderated, with prices stabilizing below $4 per gallon in most parts of the U.S. by late 2023. The administration also released oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to mitigate price spikes.
Claim 7: The regulatory mandate to eliminate gas-powered vehicles has increased costs and subsidized electric vehicles.
There is no mandate to eliminate gas-powered vehicles. The Biden administration set a target of 50% EV sales by 2030, incentivized through tax credits and infrastructure investments, rather than bans on gas vehicles.
EV subsidies are designed to reduce upfront costs for consumers and accelerate adoption of cleaner technologies. A 2023 Consumer Reports study showed that EVs often have lower total costs of ownership due to reduced maintenance and fuel expenses.
Conclusion:
The memorandum by President Trump relies on exaggerated claims, partisan data, and oversimplifications to portray Biden-era policies as detrimental. While it highlights real challenges like rising living costs, it offers little in terms of actionable or evidence-based solutions. Many claims are contradicted by independent data, and global economic factors are ignored to unfairly attribute complex issues to regulatory policies.